Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Updated Report

GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT

Agreement 36893013 DOT&PF Project 67698 Federal Project ACHP-0922(5)

Prepared for STATE OF ALASKA Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 6860 Glacier Highway Juneau, Alaska 99801

Prepared by THE GLOSTEN ASSOCIATES, INC. 600 Mutual Life Building 605 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-2224

Under contract to HDR ALASKA, INC. 712 West 12th Street Juneau, AK 99801

Original Report October 1999 MAY 2003

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Contents

1— INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Brief Description of Tongass Narrows...... 1-1 1.2 Brief Description of Project...... 1-2 2— MARINE TRAFFIC VOLUMES...... 2-1 2.1 Waterborne Commerce Traffic Volumes and Trends ...... 2-1 2.2 Cruise Ship Traffic...... 2-5 2.3 Small Cruise Operators ...... 2-20 2.4 Alaska Marine Highway System ...... 2-20 2.4.1 Current Operations ...... 2-21 2.4.2 Effect of Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan...... 2-23 2.4.3 Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA) ...... 2-24 2.5 Barges...... 2-25 2.6 Tankers...... 2-26 2.7 U.S. Coast Guard ...... 2-26 2.8 U.S. Navy ...... 2-27 2.9 Commercial Fishing Boats, Charter Vessels, and Small Craft ...... 2-28 2.9.1 Kayaks ...... 2-30 2.9.2 Personal Watercraft ...... 2-30 2.10 Gravina Island Ferry ...... 2-31 2.11 Floatplanes...... 2-31 3— WEST COAST BRIDGES AND AERIAL CABLE CROSSINGS...... 3-1 3.1 Horizontal Navigation Clearances at Coos Bay, OR ...... 3-3 4— CRUISE SHIP TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS...... 4-1 4.1 Projected Cruise Passengers and Port Calls ...... 4-1 4.2 Projected Cruise Ship Traffic Density ...... 4-4 4.3 Potential Limiting Factors...... 4-5 4.3.1 Large-Vessel Traffic Congestion in Tongass Narrows...... 4-6 5— NAVIGATION ISSUES...... 5-1 5.1 Navigation Restrictions During Construction ...... 5-1 5.2 Bridge Structure Effect on Wind ...... 5-1 5.3 Bridge Structure Effect on Current ...... 5-1 5.4 Reflection of Bow Waves by Bridge Piers...... 5-1 5.5 Radar Shadow of Bridges ...... 5-1 5.6 Ship Pilot Preferences for Bridge Alignment ...... 5-1 5.7 Horizontal Clearance Between Bridge Piers ...... 5-2 5.7.1 AASHTO Guidelines Regarding Horizontal Clearance ...... 5-2 5.7.2 PIANC Guidelines Regarding Horizontal Clearance ...... 5-2 6— POTENTIAL NAVIGATION IMPACTS OF BRIDGES ...... 6-1 6.1 Consideration of a 200-foot High Bridge in the Vicinity of Ketchikan Airport and of a 200-foot High Bridge over East Channel...... 6-1 6.2 Effect on Sailing Distances ...... 6-2 6.2.1 Blocking Large Vessels North of the Cruise Ship Docks ...... 6-2 6.2.2 Blocking Large Vessels South of the Cruise Ship Docks ...... 6-3 i

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

6.2.3 Blocking East Channel to Large Vessels ...... 6-4 6.3 Consequences of Blocking Large-Vessel Traffic in Tongass Narrows...... 6-4 6.3.1 Consequences of Blocking Tongass Narrows Near Charcoal Point ...... 6-6 Large Shipping Uses Both East and West Channels...... 6-6 Large Shipping Arrives and Departs Via East Channel Only ...... 6-7 6.3.2 Consequences of Blocking of East Channel...... 6-8 6.4 Running Time and Other Impacts on Cruise Ships...... 6-10 6.5 Other Effects of a 60-foot High Bridge over East Channel and a 200-foot High Bridge over West Channel...... 6-18 7— CONCLUSIONS ...... 7-1 8— REFERENCES ...... 8-1

List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 Tongass Narrows from Saxman to Peninsula Point ...... 1-1 Figure 2 Waterborne Commerce in Tongass Narrows...... 2-2 Figure 3 Total Trips per Year in Tongass Narrows (Including Ketchikan) ...... 2-4 Figure 4 Total Cruise Ship Passengers Calling at Ketchikan by Year...... 2-14 Figure 5 Number of Cruise Ship in Trade by Year...... 2-15 Figure 6 Number of Cruise Ship Stops at Ketchikan by Year...... 2-16 Figure 7 Large Cruise Ship Navigation Draft Trends...... 2-17 Figure 8 Large Cruise Ship Maximum Beam Trends ...... 2-18 Figure 9 Large Cruise Ship Length Overall Trends...... 2-18 Figure 10 Large Cruise Ship Gross Register Tonnage Trends ...... 2-19 Figure 11 Large Cruise Ship Air Draft Trends...... 2-19 Figure 12 AMHS Port Calls at Ketchikan...... 2-22 Figure 13 General Setting at Coos Bay, Oregon ...... 3-4 Figure 14 Ship Channels at Coos Bay, Oregon...... 3-5 Figure 15 Close-up of Deep Draft Ship Channel at Coos Bay Bridges ...... 3-6 Figure 16 Projected Minimum Aggregate Annual Cruise Passenger Capacity...... 4-2 Figure 17 Assumed Average Cruise Ship Passenger Capacity ...... 4-3 Figure 18 Estimated Ketchikan Cruise Ship Calls...... 4-4 Figure 19 Estimated Average Mid-Summer Daily Ketchikan Cruise Ship Calls...... 4-5 Figure 20 Elements of Channel Width...... 5-4 Figure 20B Identified Bridge Alternatives Between Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island...... 6-1 Figure 21 Effect of Blocking Tongass Narrows North of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks...... 6-2 Figure 22 Effect of Blocking Tongass Narrows South of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks...... 6-3 Figure 23 Navigation Consequences of the Blocking of Large Vessel Traffic in Tongass Narrows ...... 6-5 Figure 24 Illustration of Cruise Ship Maneuvers in Ketchikan Harbor if East Channel were Blocked to Large Shipping ...... 6-7

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Tongass Narrows (including Ketchikan): Total Trips and Drafts by Year...... 2-3 Table 2 Tongass Narrows (including Ketchikan): Total Trips and Maximum Drafts, by Vessel Type and Year...... 2-4 Table 3 Large Cruise Ships Operating in southeast Alaska During 2001 Cruise Season...... 2-7 Table 4 Recent Deliveries and New Large Cruise Ships on Order(Among Alaska Operators)...... 2-9 Table 5 Large Cruise Ships Worldwide...... 2-12 Table 6 Historical Cruise Ship Traffic at Ketchikan, Alaska...... 2-13 Table 7 Capacity Ratio for Cruise Ships Calling at Ketchikan, Alaska, in the Years 1991 Through 2000...... 2-17 Table 8 Small Cruise Vessels Operating in southeast Alaska...... 2-20 Table 9 Dimensions of Alaska Marine Highways Vessels Operating in southeast Alaska ...... 2-21 Table 10 Alaska Marine Highways Vessel Calls at Ketchikan...... 2-23 Table 11 Alaska Marine Highways Vessel Calls at Ketchikan, August 2001 ...... 2-23 Table 12 Dimensions of U.S. Coast Guard Cutters Stationed at Ketchikan ...... 2-27 Table 13 Dimensions of Large U.S. Coast Guard Cutters Stationed Elsewhere...... 2-27 Table 14 Characteristic Dimensions of Large U.S. Navy Vessel Classes ...... 2-28 Table 15 Ketchikan Harbor Capacities ...... 2-28 Table 16 1994 Ketchikan Harbor Census ...... 2-29 Table 17 1998 Ketchikan Boat Launch Permits...... 2-30 Table 18 Existing West Coast Bridges and Cable Crossings...... 3-2 Table 19 Available Horizontal Clearances at Some Bridge Crossings and Channels Worldwide...... 3-3 Table 20 2001 Ketchikan Cruise Season – Large Cruise Ship Call Statistics ...... 4-4 Table 21 Example Daily Ketchikan Cruise Ship Schedule...... 4-7 Table 22 Basic Maneuvering Lane...... 5-5 Table 23 Dependencies in Table 5.2 of Reference [18]...... 5-6 Table 24 Principal Dimensions of Carnival Conquest Class Cruise Ship (Design Ship Class) ...... 5-6 Table 25 Principal Dimensions of M/V Columbia AMHS Ferry (Design Ship Class)...... 5-6 Table 26 Minimum Tongass Narrows Channel Width (feet) Estimated Using PIANC Concept Design Method ...... 5-7 Table 27 Minimum Tongass Narrows Channel Width (feet) at Low Level Bridge Estimated Using PIANC Concept Design Method ...... 5-7 Table 28 Incidence of Two-Way Traffic in Tongass Narrows in 2001...... 5-8 Table 29 Transit Speed for Northbound Cruise Ship Traffic in Tongass Narrows in 2001...... 6-10 Table 30 Transit Speed for Southbound Cruise Ship Traffic in Tongass Narrows in 2001...... 6-10 Table 31 Impact on Northbound Running Time, of a 120-foot High Bridge Across Tongass Narrows North of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks ...... 6-11 Table 32 Impact on Southbound Running Time, of a 120-foot High Bridge Across Tongass Narrows North of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks ...... 6-12 Table 33 Impact on Northbound Running Time, of a 60-foot High Bridge Across East Channel South of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks: Departure via North ...... 6-13 Table 34 Impact on Southbound Running Time, of a 60-foot High Bridge Across East Channel South of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks: Departure via North ...... 6-14 Table 35 Impact on Northbound Running Time, of a 60-foot High Bridge Across East Channel South of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks: Departure via West Channel...... 6-15 Table 36 Impact on Southbound Running Time, of a 60-foot High Bridge Across East Channel South of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks: Departure via West Channel...... 6-16

iii

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

1—Introduction

1.1 Brief Description of Tongass Narrows

Tongass Narrows (see Figure 1) is a continuation of Revillagigedo Channel that extends northwest to the Guard Islands in Clarence Strait. Tongass Narrows is divided at its lower end by Pennock Island. The channel northeast of the island is called East Channel, and the channel southwest of the island West Channel. According to the United States Coast Pilot, both channels accommodate vessels of any draft.

FIGURE 1 TONGASS NARROWS FROM SAXMAN TO PENINSULA POINT

Cruise ships bound for Ketchikan generally use East Channel, because it aligns better with the cruise ship docks. Barges and vessels of the Alaska Marine Highway System tend to use West Channel to avoid cruise ship traffic and because there is less shoreline development along West Channel to be affected by wake.

1-1

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

The Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR §162.240) prescribes the following speed restriction for marine navigation in Tongass Narrows: No vessel, except for public law enforcement and emergency response vessels, floatplanes during landings and take-offs, and vessels of 23 feet registered length or less, shall exceed a speed of 7 knots in the region of Tongass Narrows bounded to the north by Tongass Narrows Buoy 9 and to the south by Tongass Narrows East Channel Regulatory marker at position 55 deg. 19' 22.0" N, 131 deg. 36' 40.5" W and Tongass Narrows West Channel Regulatory marker at position 55 deg. 19' 28.5" N, 131 deg. 39' 09.7" W, respectively. Because of the heavy and diverse character of marine traffic in Tongass Narrows, vessel operations there are also currently subject to the voluntary guidelines of the “Tongass Narrows Voluntary Waterway User Guide,” published March 18, 1999.

1.2 Brief Description of Project

The Gravina Access Project’s mission is to identify practical alternatives for improving access between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Alternatives that were considered in earlier phases of the project include no change, bridges, submerged tubes, tunnels, and improved ferry service. The alternatives retained for further evaluation under the current phase are: various locations and alignments of bridges, improved ferry service, and no change. As the project progresses, a preferred alternative will be identified and outlined in the environmental impact statement (EIS). A final design will follow approval of the EIS.

1-2

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

2—Marine Traffic Volumes

This section presents summarized data characterizing the traffic volume and salient dimensions of the principal classes of vessels using Tongass Narrows. Data are derived from diverse sources and are, in general, complementary. Projections of future cruise ship traffic calling at Ketchikan are presented and discussed in Section 4.

2.1 Waterborne Commerce Traffic Volumes and Trends

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (WCSC), collects and compiles data regarding vessel movements on navigable waters of the United States. Statistical summaries of these data are published annually under the title Waterborne Commerce of the United States (e.g., Reference [1]), and additional data and statistics may be obtained by contacting WCSC directly. The legal authority for the collection, compilation, and publication of waterborne commerce statistics by the COE is Section 11 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1922 (42 Stat. 1043), as amended, and codified in 33 U.S. Code (U.S.C.). 555, which provides the following: “Owners, agents, masters, and clerks of vessels and other craft plying upon the navigable waters of the United States, and all individuals and corporations engaged in transporting their goods upon the navigable waters of the United States, shall furnish such statements relative to vessels, passengers, freight and tonnage as may be required by the Secretary of the Army: Provided. That this provision shall not apply to those rafting logs, except upon a direct request upon the owner to furnish specific information. Every person or persons offending against the provisions of this section shall, for each and every offense, be liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding two months, to be enforced in any district court of the United States within whose territorial jurisdiction such offense may have been committed. In addition, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation against any person or entity, that fails to provide timely, accurate statements required to be submitted pursuant to this section by the Secretary.” The waterborne commerce traffic movements are reported to the COE by all vessel operators of record on ENG Forms 3925 and 3925b (or equivalent). The reports are generally submitted on the basis of individual vessel movements completed. Cargo moved for the military agencies in commercial vessels is reported as ordinary commercial cargo; military cargo movements in Department of Defense vessels are not collected. All vessels in commercial operation (i.e., carrying either cargo or passengers for hire) and traveling more than three miles are required to report their movements. In summarizing the domestic commerce, certain movements are excluded: cargo carried on general ferries, coal and petroleum products loaded from shore facilities directly into ship’s bunkers as vessel fuel, and insignificant amounts of government materials (less than 100 tons) moved on government-owned equipment in support of Army Corps of Engineers projects. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) furnished the fish landing data. No domestic fishing vessel trips are included in the data of the Trips and Drafts Section of Reference [1], but Alaska ferry movements are included.

2-1

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Figure 2 shows the total reported tonnage of waterborne cargo handled through Tongass Narrows (inclusive of Ketchikan harbor). The cargo tonnage shown in Figure 2 includes all cargo (i.e., shipped, received and “through” cargo). The past ten years of data indicate a downward trend of tonnage handled through Tongass Narrows, most likely reflecting the closure of the Ketchikan pulp mill and general regional declines in forest and fishing commerce.

Waterborne Commerce in Tongass Narrows, Including Ketchikan Inclusive of: Shipping, Receiving, and Through Traffic

5000000

4000000

3000000

2000000 Total tonnage (short tons) 1000000 Annual Trend = -321,610 short tons

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center

FIGURE 2 WATERBORNE COMMERCE IN TONGASS NARROWS

Table 1 gives the total reported trips, by year, in Tongass Narrows (including Ketchikan) – with statistics describing the distribution of vessel drafts. The “Maximum” column contains the greatest draft for which any trips were reported. The percentile columns indicate the draft below which the specified percent of all trips fall. For example, in the year 1990, 98% of all vessel trips reported had a draft equal to or less than 17.36 feet.

2-2

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 1 TONGASS NARROWS (INCLUDING KETCHIKAN): TOTAL TRIPS AND DRAFTS BY YEAR Year Total Trips Draft (feet) Maximum 98th Percentile 95th Percentile 90th Percentile 75th Percentile 1990 9,687 28 17.36 16.77 16.32 15.07 1991 6,552 34 20.07 17.72 16.77 15.79 1992 6,885 35 20.13 18.35 17.43 15.92 1993 7,624 28 19.58 18.69 17.71 15.56 1994 10,339 36 27.37 24.24 16.47 14.17 1995 10,400 35 27.19 24.24 16.30 13.81 1996 10,094 37 26.47 23.86 16.37 14.24 1997 9,983 36 26.54 23.62 16.34 14.51 1998 9,228 Data not available# 1999 13,989 Data not available# Average 9,478 33.62 23.09 20.94 16.71 14.88 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center # Unlike in previous years, the percentile distribution of trips and drafts was not available The average number of yearly trips given in the final row of Table 1 is the average of the data for 1990–1999. The draft averages are based on the data for 1990–1997.

Table 2 provides (for each year and for each of five vessel categories) the total number of reported trips in Tongass Narrows (including Ketchikan), and the maximum reported draft. The data include trips and drafts corresponding to both domestic and foreign vessels. Note that, while the total reported tonnage of waterborne cargo handled through Tongass Narrows has shown a declining trend over the past decade (Figure 2), there has not been a decline in the number of trips. Figure 3 shows the total number of recorded trips per year, from 1991 through 2000, for the different vessel types.

2-3

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 2 TONGASS NARROWS (INCLUDING KETCHIKAN): TOTAL TRIPS AND MAXIMUM DRAFTS, BY VESSEL TYPE AND YEAR Year Self-Propelled Self-Propelled Self-Propelled Non-Self-Propelled Non-Self- Total Passenger & Dry Cargo Tanker Tow or Tug Dry Cargo Propelled Tanker Trips Max. Trips Max. Trips Max. Trips Max. Trips Max. Trips Max. Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft 1990 Data are not readily available. 1991 2,511 20 18 34 2,480 17 1,372 15 172 14 6,553 34 1992 2,755 20 18 35 2,129 18 1,842 13 143 13 6,887 35 1993 2,818 20 16 28 2,506 20 2,243 16 43 13 7,626 28 1994 4,495 15 27 34 2,831 18 2,743 15 245 16 10,341 34 1995 4,288 32 24 35 3,102 22 2,692 25 295 17 10,401 35 1996 4,369 37 24 28 2,903 16 2,369 18 431 20 10,096 37 1997 4,591 36 5 22 2,845 20 2,074 25 471 16 9,986 36 1998 4,811 29 0 — 2,066 18 2,012 29 339 16 9,228 29 1999 7,940 29 0 — 2,855 22 2,660 29 534 15 13,989 29 2000 6,796 31 0 — 3,267 21 2,759 23 336 18 13,158 31 Maximum 7,940 37 27 35 3,267 22 2,759 29 534 20 13,989 37 Average 4,537 26.9 13.2 21.6 2,698 19.2 2,276 20.8 300 15.8 9,826 32.8 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center The maximum in the next-to-last row is the greatest value occurring in each particular column, and the average appearing in the final row is the average of the nine years of data for each particular column. The maximum and average drafts, however, are for the years 1991–1997.

20000

17500 Self-Propelled Passenger & Dry Cargo Self-Propelled Tanker Self-Propelled Tow or Tug 15000 Non-Self-Propelled Dry Cargo Non-Self-Propelled Tanker 12500 Total Trips

10000

7500

5000

2500

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 FIGUREYear 3 TOTAL TRIPS PER YEAR IN TONGASS NARROWS (INCLUDING KETCHIKAN)

2-4

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

2.2 Cruise Ship Traffic

The largest vessels routinely using Tongass Narrows are cruise ships that call seasonally at Ketchikan, primarily from May through September. As a consequence of the Passenger Services Act,1 most of the large cruise ships operating in Alaska operate from Vancouver, British Columbia. Therefore, nearly all of the large cruise ships calling at Ketchikan pass under the Lions Gate Bridge located at the First Narrows, at Vancouver, BC Vessels taking the inside passage of Vancouver Island must also pass under the Seymour Narrows power cable crossing, located north of Campbell River. As described in Section 3 of this report, the vertical clearance of the Lions Gate Bridge is 200 feet and the vertical clearance of the Seymour Narrows power cable is currently 180 feet. However, the available clearance under overhead cables may be less—by about 16 feet, unless otherwise prescribed—given regulations to avoid a dangerous electrical discharge between the cable and a vessel passing under it. This is discussed further in Section 3. Table 3 provides principal dimensions and other data regarding the large cruise ships that operated in southeast Alaska during the 2001 summer cruise season. Table 4 provides principal dimensions and data for large cruise ships currently on order by cruise lines that have historically operated in southeast Alaska. These cruise lines have significant operations in other parts of the world; therefore, some of the new vessels were not destined for southeast Alaska operations. In particular, the largest of the new cruise ships are generally regarded as more suitable for other markets, such as the Mediterranean, which are currently experiencing rapid growth and are not inhibited by the restricted waterways characteristic of southeast Alaska cruising. The largest modern cruise ships are designed as destinations in their own right, making the actual ports of call somewhat less important. The architectural focus of these ships is inward, whereas the essence of southeast Alaska cruising is the spectacular scenery external to the vessel and the ports of call. Thus, the very large new cruise ships are best suited to “cruises to nowhere” or to less-scenic ports of call—the antithesis of Alaska cruising. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that the largest of the new cruise ships will be frequently seen in southeast Alaska in the foreseeable future. P&O Princess Cruises took delivery of the Grand Princess (178-foot air draft) in 1998 and Royal Caribbean took delivery of the Voyager of the Seas (208-foot air draft) in October 1999. The Voyager of the Seas is currently the world’s largest active cruise ship, a title previously (if briefly) held by the Grand Princess. Table 4 includes the pertinent data for these two vessels. Additional vessels of these two classes are on order and under construction. Table 5 lists cruise ships worldwide that are 83,000 gross tons or larger. Included in Table 5 are active vessels, vessels currently under construction, and vessels for which firm orders have been placed. The data in Tables 3, 4 and 5 were collected from a variety of sources. These include pilot cards and wheelhouse posters of several vessels, the official Websites of the respective cruise lines and shipyards, and a variety of cruise ship industry resources in print (Reference [2]) and on the Internet (e.g., CruiseNewsDaily.com). The ships that called at Ketchikan in the years 1990–1999 are highlighted (in bold) in Table 5, to provide a better perspective of southeast Alaska cruise ship operations. Interestingly, the three ships in Table 5 that have called at Ketchikan first did so in the 2001 season. This is in tune with trends in cruise ship traffic in the area, which are discussed below in light of additional data.

1 The Passenger Services Act imposes restrictions on the operations of foreign-built passenger vessels. The Jones Act places similar restrictions on foreign-built freight vessels. These are both basic cabotage acts that limit the carriage of passengers and freight between domestic ports to vessels constructed in the United States. To circumvent the Passenger Services Act, foreign-built cruise ships operate from the foreign port of Vancouver, BC 2-5

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Data for cruise ship traffic at Ketchikan over the years 1991 through 2001 are tabulated in Table 6. The trends in cruise ship traffic and passenger volumes to Ketchikan are also plotted in Figures 4 through 6. The data were obtained from References [3] and [4]. Figure 4 shows the number of cruise ship passengers calling at Ketchikan and indicates that the mean linear trend over the past decade is an annual increase of 37,722 passengers per year. Figure 5 shows the number of cruise ships in the Ketchikan trade, with the mean linear trend over the past decade being an annual increase of 1.52 ships per year. Figure 6 shows the number of cruise ship stops in Ketchikan, and indicates the mean linear trend over the past decade to be an annual increase of 16.84 stops per year. Note that Figures 4, 5 and 6 include data for large and small cruise ships. Small cruise ship operators in southeast Alaska are discussed further in Section 2.3. The capacity ratios shown in Table 7 are based on the reanalysis of the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau cruise ship calendars shown in Table 6 ,and cruise ship passenger actual totals for the years 1991 through 2000 (also provided by the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau). The lowest capacity ratios (on the order of 93%) occurred in the years 1991 and 1995. In five of the ten years, the capacity ratios equaled or exceeded 100%. Capacity ratios exceeding 100% are possible because cruise ship capacity is rated on the basis of lower berths; i.e., upper berths represent additional (unrated) capacity). Of significance, the most recent three years all have capacity ratios exceeding 100%, indicating that all cruise ships are running essentially sold-out and full. Figures 7 through 11 indicate trends in large cruise ship principal dimensions and gross register tonnage. Trends are indicated for the world fleet and also for the subset of cruise ships operating in southeast Alaska. Figure 7 indicates the trend in maximum navigation draft; Figure 8, the trend in maximum beam; and Figure 9, the trend in overall length. Figure 10 shows the trend in gross register tonnage, a measure of the total enclosed volume of the ship; and Figure 11, the trend in air draft, including future points representing new vessels under construction by cruise lines that have historically operated in southeast Alaska.

2-6

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 3 LARGE CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA DURING 2001 CRUISE SEASON Operator Ship Passenger Gross Displacement Length Register Beam Beam Maximum Air Draft capacity Tonnage (metric tons) Overall Length Maximum Register Draft (feet) in lower berth (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (Max.) Carnival Carnival Spirit 2,114 85,920 44,920 960 128.4 105.6 26.2 172.2 (2,680) Celebrity Infinity 1,950 91,000 965 105.0 26.3 Mercury 1,870 77,713 866 105.6 25.5 (2,681) Crystal Cruises Crystal Harmony 960 49,400 28,180 790 676 105.0 97.1 24.6 143.0^ Holland America Ryndam 1,629 55,451 31,338 720 607 111.6 101.1 24.6 173.0 Statendam 1,629 55,451 31,338 720 607 111.6 101.1 24.6 173.0 Veendam 1,629 55,451 31,338 720 607 111.6 101.1 24.6 173.0 Volendam 1,440 61,000 33,870 780 663 113.0 105.8 26.6 157.4^ (1,824) Westerdam 1,494 53,900 33,083 800 723 106.0 95.1 23.6 155.2^ Zaandam 1,440 61,000 33,870 780 663 113.0 105.8 26.6 157.4^ (1,824) Norwegian Cruise Line Norwegian Sky 2,002 77,104 39,000 848 118.1 105.8 26.2 168.0 (2,400) Norwegian Wind 1,748 50,760 754 624 105.3 93.5 22.0 ^ This is the stated height to the top of the stacks. The maximum air draft (to the top of the radio antennae) may be as much as 10 to 18 feet more, based on the known difference between the two air drafts for some large cruise ships.

2-7

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 3, CONTINUED LARGE CRUISE SHIPS OPERATING IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA DURING 2001 CRUISE SEASON Operator Ship Passenger Gross Displacement Length Register Beam Beam Maximum Air Draft capacity Tonnage (metric tons) Overall Length Max Register Draft (feet) in lower berth (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (Max.) NYK Cruises Asuka 600 28,856 632 Princess Cruises Dawn Princess 1,950 77,441 39,997 857 762 132.2 105.8 26.6 159.1& (2,342) Ocean Princess 1,950 77,441 857 762 132.2 105.8 26.6 159.1& (2,342) Regal Princess 1,590 70,000 811 115.0 Sea Princess 1,950 77,441 857 762 132.2 105.8 26.6 159.1& (2,342) Sun Princess 1,950 77,441 857 762 132.2 105.8 26.6 159.1& (2,342) Radisson Seven Seas Seven Seas Mariner 700 709 Cruises Royal Caribbean Inc. Rhapsody of the Seas 2,000 78,491 38,917 915 116.3 105.6 25.4 170.5^ (2,416) Radiance of the Seas 2,100 90,090 46,500 962 131.2 105.6 27.9 173.2^ (2,501) Vision of the Seas 2,000 78,491 38,917 915 116.3 105.6 25.4 170.5^ (2,416) World Explorer Cruises Universe Explorer 737 23,500 22,886 617 570 88.0 84.0 27.3 130.0 & This corresponds to the maximum air draft with the mast lowered. ^ This is the stated height to the top of the stacks. The maximum air draft (to the top of the radio antennae) may be as much as 10 to 18 feet more, based on the known difference between the two air drafts for some large cruise ships.

2-8

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 4 RECENT DELIVERIES AND NEW LARGE CRUISE SHIPS ON ORDER (AMONG ALASKA OPERATORS) Operator Ship Passenger Gross Displacement Length Register Beam Max Beam Maximum Air Draft Year capacity Tonnage (metric tons) Overall Length @ Bridge Register Draft (feet) Finished in lower berth (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (Max.) Carnival Carnival Victory* 2,758 101,509 50,800 894 141.7 116.5 27.2 208.0 2000 (3,400) Carnival Pride 2,114 85,920 44,920 960 128.4 105.6 26.2 172.2 2002 (2,680) Carnival Legend 2,114 85,920 44,920 960 128.4 105.6 26.2 172.2 2002 (2,680) Carnival Conquest* 2,976 110,000 ~954 ~141.7 ~116.5 ~27.2 ~208.0 2002 Carnival Miracle 2,114 85,920 44,920 960 128.4 105.6 26.2 172.2 2003 (2,680) Carnival Glory* 2,976 110,000 ~954 ~141.7 ~116.5 ~27.2 ~208.0 2003 Carnival Valor* 2,976 110,000 ~954 ~141.7 ~116.5 ~27.2 ~208.0 2004 Celebrity Summit 1,950 91,000 965 105.0 26.3 2001 Constellation 1,950 91,000 965 105.0 26.3 2002 Holland America Amsterdam 1,380 61,000 32,500 781 663 111.6 105.8 26.6 152.5^ 2000 (1,738) Zuiderdam 1,848 84,000 951 2002 Oosterdam 1,848 84,000 951 2003 Holland America Vista Class 3 1,848 84,000 951 2004 Vista Class 4 1,848 84,000 951 2004 Vista Class 5 1,848 84,000 951 2005 * Post-Panamax vessels ^ This is the stated height to the top of the stacks. The maximum air draft (to the top of the radio antennae) may be as much as 10 to 18 feet more, based on the known difference between the two air drafts for some large cruise ships.

2-9

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

2-10

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 4, CONTINUED RECENT DELIVERIES AND NEW LARGE CRUISE SHIPS ON ORDER (AMONG ALASKA OPERATORS) Operator Ship Passenger Gross Displacement Length Register Beam Max Beam Maximum Air Draft Year capacity Tonnage (metric tons) Overall Length @ Bridge Register Draft (feet) Finished in lower berth (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (Max.) Royal Caribbean Explorer of the Seas 3,138 142,000 64,474 1,020 157.4 126.6 28.2 207.0^ 2000 (3,840) Adventure of the Seas 3,138 142,000 64,474 1,020 157.4 126.6 28.2 207.0^ 2001 (3,840) Brilliance of the Seas 2,100 90,090 46,500 962 131.2 105.6 27.9 173.2^ 2002 (2,501) Navigator of the Seas 3,138 142,000 64,474 1,020 157.4 126.6 28.2 207.0^ 2002 (3,840) Serenade of the Seas 2,100 90,090 46,500 962 131.2 105.6 27.9 173.2^ 2003 (2,501) Voyager Class 5 3,138 142,000 64,474 1,020 157.4 126.6 28.2 207.0^ 2003 (3,840) Jewel of the Seas 2,100 90,090 46,500 962 131.2 105.6 27.9 173.2^ 2004 (2,501) American Hawaiian Queen of the Americas 1,900 72,000 840 105.7 26.3 <180 ft 2003 Cruises Hawaii 2 1,900 72,000 840 105.7 26.3 ^ This is the stated height to the top of the stacks. The maximum air draft (to the top of the radio antennae) may be as much as 10 to 18 feet more, based on the known difference between the two air drafts for some large cruise ships. Comment: The American Hawaiian vessels under construction at Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, are the first large cruise ships built in the United States in more than 40 years. While designed for Hawaiian service, these vessels are U.S.-built and U.S.-flagged, and thus may embark/disembark passengers on voyages between any U.S. ports.

2-11

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 5 LARGE CRUISE SHIPS WORLDWIDE Ship Passenger Gross Tonnage Length Beam Max Maximum Air Draft Status/ capacity Overall @ Bridge Draft (feet) Estimated in lower berth (feet) (feet) (feet) Inaugural Queen Mary 2 2,620 150,000 1,131 147.5 32.8 236^ Late 2003 Voyager of the Seas 3,138 142,000 1,020 157.4 28.2 207^ Active Explorer of the Seas 3,138 142,000 1,020 157.4 28.2 207^ Active Adventure of the Seas 3,138 142,000 1,020 157.4 28.2 207^ Nov. 2001 Navigator of the Seas 3,138 142,000 1,020 157.4 28.2 207^ Oct. 2002 Voyager Class 5 3,138 142,000 1,020 157.4 28.2 207^ Fall 2003 Diamond Princess 2,600 113,000 Jul. 2003 Sapphire Princess 2,600 113,000 May 2004 SuperStar Sagittarius II 3,000 112,000 1,037 Oct. 2003 SuperStar Capricorn II 3,000 112,000 1,037 Oct. 2004 Carnival Conquest 2,976 110,000 ~954 ~141.7 ~27.2 ~208 Nov. 2002 Carnival Glory 2,976 110,000 ~954 ~141.7 ~27.2 ~208 Mid-2003 Carnival Valor 2,976 110,000 ~954 ~141.7 ~27.2 ~208 Fall 2004 Grand Princess 2,600 109,000 951 158.1 26.2 177 Active Golden Princess 2,600 109,000 951 158.1 26.2 177 Active Star Princess 2,600 109,000 951 158.1 26.2 177 Mar. 2002 Costa Fortuna 2,720 105,000 894 141.7 27.2 208 Late 2003 Costa Magica 2,720 105,000 894 141.7 27.2 208 Late 2004 Carnival Triumph 2,766 102,353 894 141.7 27.2 208 Active Carnival Victory 2,758 101,509 894 141.7 27.2 208 Active Carnival Destiny 2,642 101,353 894 141.7 27.2 208 Active P&O (unnamed) 2,600 101,000 Spr. 2004 Norwegian Star 2,244 91,000 965 26.2 Nov. 2001 Norwegian Dawn 2,300 91,000 Oct. 2002 Celebrity Millennium 1,950 91,000 965 26.3 Active Celebrity Infinity 1,950 91,000 965 26.3 Active Celebrity Summit 1,950 91,000 965 26.3 Oct. 2001 Celebrity Constellation 1,950 91,000 965 26.3 Jun. 2002 Radiance of the Seas 2,100 90,090 962 131.2 27.9 173^ Active Brilliance of the Seas 2,100 90,090 962 131.2 27.9 173^ Apr. 2002 Serenade of the Seas 2,100 90,090 962 131.2 27.9 173^ Jun. 2003 Jewel of the Seas 2,100 90,090 962 131.2 27.9 173^ Jun. 2004 Coral Princess 1,950 88,000 886 Oct. 2002 Island Princess 1,950 88,000 886 Jun. 2003 ^ This is the stated height to the top of the stacks. The maximum air draft (to the top of the radio antennae) may be as much as 10 to 18 feet more, based on the known difference between the two air drafts for some large cruise ships.

2-12

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 5, CONTINUED LARGE CRUISE SHIPS WORLDWIDE Ship Passenger Gross Tonnage Length Beam Max Maximum Air Draft Status/ capacity Overall @ Bridge Draft (feet) Estimated in lower berth (feet) (feet) (feet) Inaugural Carnival Spirit 2,114 85,920 960 128.4 26.2 172 Active Carnival Pride 2,114 85,920 960 128.4 26.2 172 Jan. 2002 Carnival Legend 2,114 85,920 960 128.4 26.2 172 Mid-2002 Carnival Miracle 2,114 85,920 960 128.4 26.2 172 Spr. 2004 Zuiderdam 1,848 84,000 951 Sep. 2002 Oosterdam 1,848 84,000 951 Jul. 2003 Vista Class 3 1,848 84,000 951 Jan. 2004 Vista Class 4 1,848 84,000 951 Sep. 2004 Vista Class 5 1,848 84,000 951 May 2005 Disney Magic 1,760 83,000 964 Active Disney Wonder 1,760 83,000 964 Active Comment: The ships that have called at Ketchikan (during 1991–2001) are indicated in bold. All three of them first called at Ketchikan in the 2001 season.

TABLE 6 HISTORICAL CRUISE SHIP TRAFFIC AT KETCHIKAN, ALASKA Total Small Cruise Ships Large Cruise Ships Year Pass. Ships Stops Pass. Ships Stops Pass. Ships Stops Avg Capacity 1991 261,459 27 393 5,983 5 71 255,476 22 322 793 1992 263,046 23 364 8,190 6 94 254,856 17 270 944 1993 321,780 28 421 11,619 10 138 310,161 18 283 1096 1994 380,522 31 453 9,211 10 115 371,311 21 338 1099 1995 381,805 33 445 9,927 10 110 371,878 23 335 1110 1996 437,491 35 494 11,090 11 129 426,401 24 365 1168 1997 496,981 35 472 10,351 13 121 486,630 22 351 1386 1998 520,151 35 489 13,179 14 145 506,972 21 344 1474 1999 541,381 32 452 9,261 11 104 532,120 21 348 1529 2000 549,114 38 461 9,994 15 113 539,120 23 348 1549 2001 652,486 39 519 11,962 15 134 640,524 24 385 1664 Based on independent reanalysis of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Calendars prepared by the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau (KVB) for years 1991 through 2001. In a few instances, this table presents passenger totals with minor differences when compared to totals previously published by KVB (e.g., 1995). These minor differences are attributed to identifiable arithmetic errors.

2-13

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP HISTORY Total Cruise Ship Passengers by Year

700000

600000

500000

400000

300000 Actual No. of Passengers Annual Increase = 37722 200000

100000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

FIGURE 4 TOTAL CRUISE SHIP PASSENGERS CALLING AT KETCHIKAN BY YEAR

2-14

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP HISTORY Number of Cruise Ships in Trade by Year

40 38 36 34 32 30 28

No. of Ships 26 24 22 Annual Increase = 1.52 20 18

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

FIGURE 5 NUMBER OF CRUISE SHIPS IN TRADE BY YEAR

2-15

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP HISTORY Number of Cruise Stops by Year

520

470

420

370 No. of Stops 320

270 Annual Increase = 16.84

220 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

FIGURE 6 NUMBER OF CRUISE SHIP STOPS AT KETCHIKAN BY YEAR

2-16

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 7 CAPACITY RATIO FOR CRUISE SHIPS CALLING AT KETCHIKAN IN THE YEARS 1991 THROUGH 2000 Year Aggregate Capacity Cruise Passengers Capacity Ratio (Lower Berth) (Actual) 1991 261,459 242,755 92.85% 1992 263,046 263,046 100.00% 1993 321,780 321,780 100.00% 1994 380,522 379,645 99.77% 1995 381,805 355,784 93.18% 1996 437,491 426,232 97.43% 1997 496,981 480,688 96.72% 1998 520,151 531,108 102.11% 1999 541,381 565,005 104.36% 2000 549,114 572,464 104.25% Capacity ratios exceeding 100% are possible because cruise ship capacities are rated based on lower-berth capacity.

FIGURE 7 LARGE CRUISE SHIP NAVIGATION DRAFT TRENDS

2-17

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

FIGURE 8 LARGE CRUISE SHIP MAXIMUM BEAM TRENDS

FIGURE 9 LARGE CRUISE SHIP LENGTH OVERALL TRENDS

2-18

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

FIGURE 10 LARGE CRUISE SHIP GROSS REGISTER TONNAGE TRENDS

FIGURE 11 LARGE CRUISE SHIP AIR DRAFT TRENDS

2-19

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

2.3 Small Cruise Operators

In addition to the large cruise ships operating in southeast Alaska and calling at Ketchikan, a growing number of small cruise ships offer adventure and/or nature-oriented cruising opportunities. Table 7 (taken from the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau’s cruise ship calendar for 2001) provides a representative sample of these vessels. To put the small-cruise operations into perspective: of the 39 cruise ships scheduled to call at Ketchikan in the 2001 season, 24 were large cruise ships and 15 were small cruise ships. In terms of the potential number of passengers arriving on these ships: the potential total for 2001, including large and small cruise ships, was estimated at 652,486; of these, the potential total for the 15 small cruise ships was 11,962—about 1.8% of the total number of potential passengers for 2001. Because of their dimensions and maneuverability, small cruise ships are not expected to impose constraints on any of the proposed Gravina Access Project bridge alternatives.

TABLE 8 SMALL CRUISE VESSELS OPERATING IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA Operator Vessel Number of Length Beam Draft Tonnage Passengers Overall (feet) (feet) (feet) Alaska’s Executive Explorer 49 98.5 36.75 Glacier Bay Tours Wilderness Adventurer 74 156 and Cruises Wilderness Discoverer 88 169 38 95 Wilderness Explorer 36 104 Clipper Cruise Lines Clipper Odyssey 114 338 Yorktown Clipper 138 257 43 8 99.5 Special Expeditions Sea Bird 70 152 31 8 99.7 Sea Lion 70 152 31 8 99.7 Alaska Sightseeing/ Spirit of Discovery 84 166 94 Cruise West Sheltered Seas 90 90 95 Spirit of Glacier Bay 58 125 97 Spirit of Alaska 82 143 97 Spirit of Columbia 78 143 98 Spirit of ’98 101 192 96 Spirit of Endeavor 102 219 99

2.4 Alaska Marine Highway System

The Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) serves twenty-one southeast Alaska communities, while also connecting with Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and Bellingham, Washington. To do so, it operates five mainline and two feeder vehicle and passenger ferries in southeast Alaska. The mainline vessels are the Columbia, Kennecott, Malaspina, Matanuska, and Taku. Currently the Columbia, Kennicott, Matanuska and

2-20

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Taku routinely call at Ketchikan. The feeder vessels are Aurora and Le Conte. Under current schedules, the Aurora routinely calls at Ketchikan.

2.4.1 Current Operations

Table 9 indicates the principal dimensions of the AMHS vessels that currently have routine operations in southeast Alaska. Note that the AMHS fleet also includes the Bartlett (193' long; 190 passengers, 29 vehicles), which operates in Prince William Sound, and the Tustumena (296' long; 210 passengers, 36 vehicles), which operates in Prince William Sound and southwest Alaska (out to Unalaska). Figure 12 indicates that AMHS port calls at Ketchikan have been remarkably steady over the past decade. Table 10 shows annual port calls, by vessel, at Ketchikan during 1997 and 1998. Table 11 shows Ketchikan port calls during the peak-traffic month in the 2001 annual cycle (August). The data in Figure 12 and Table 10 were obtained from References [5] and [6], while the data in Table 11 were obtained from the AMHS Website (Reference [7]). The 116 AMHS port calls at Ketchikan in August 2001 represent an average of 3.74 port calls per day. According to the 2001 schedule, the peak number of AMHS vessel calls is 6 per day.

TABLE 9 DIMENSIONS OF ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAYS VESSELS OPERATING IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA Vessel Capacity Length Beam Draft Air Draft (Passengers/ Overall (feet) (feet) (feet) Vehicles) (feet) Columbia 625 / 134A 418 85 17.5 106+ Malaspina 500 / 88A 408 74 16.67 106+ Matanuska 500 / 88A 408 74 16.67 106+ Taku 450 / 69A 352 74 16.67 90+ Kennicott 748 / 120B 382 85 17.5 95 Aurora 250 / 34A 235.75 57.33 14 65.33 Le Conte 250 / 34A 235.75 57.33 14 65.33 A 20-ft lengths B Alaska standard vehicles Notes: 1) Drafts are maximum navigation drafts, corresponding variously with the loadline and/or the draft used in American Bureau of Shipping scantling determinations. 2) Air drafts followed by a plus sign ‘+’ are measured from the design waterline. The maximum air draft could be greater under some light loading conditions. In general, the increase in air draft should be no more than 3 feet.

2-21

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

AMHS SCHEDULED DEPARTURES FROM KETCHIKAN

1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 AMHS Departures from Ketchikan 100 Source: AMHS 1997 Annual Traffic Volume Report, page 11 0 1987 198819891990 199119921993 19941995199619971998 Year

FIGURE 12 AMHS PORT CALLS AT KETCHIKAN

2-22

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 10 ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAYS VESSEL CALLS AT KETCHIKAN Vessel 1997 1998 Columbia 62 49 Malaspina 124 11 Matanuska 82 88 Taku 159 114 Aurora 566 576 Le Conte 50 37 Kennicott — 34 1043 909 Source: Based on data in the “AMHS Annual Traffic Volume Report,” 1997 (p. 26) and 1998 (p. 27)

TABLE 11 ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAYS VESSEL CALLS AT KETCHIKAN, AUGUST 2001 August 2001 Columbia 9 Malaspina 0 Matanuska 9 Taku 18 Aurora 64 Le Conte 0 Kennicott 16 116 Source: AMHS Official Summer 2001 Schedule

2.4.2 Effect of Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan

In March 1999, the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) approved a new regional-transportation master plan for southeast Alaska (Reference [8]). Known as the “Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan” (SATP), the plan proposed significant changes in the way in which ferry service is delivered in the southeast Alaska region. Consequently, it will alter the future character of the AMHS vessels calling at Ketchikan. Earlier this year, in February 2001, the Southeast Region of the DOT&PF, which was tasked with implementing the SATP, issued an Addendum One to the SATP (Reference [9]). The addendum further refines the plan, and summarizes the results of the studies commissioned in accordance with the SATP and the transportation initiatives taken in response to the results of those studies and public input. The SATP planning horizon is the period between 2000 and 2020. When implemented, the SATP will result in continued service throughout southeast Alaska by the existing mainline vessels (Columbia, Kennicott, Matanuska, Malaspina and Taku), as well as daily service from new smaller vessels providing regional,

2-23

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

community, or shuttle services as defined in the SATP. These smaller vessels may be either conventional or high-speed vessels, depending on route. It may be of interest to note the planned construction of the Sitka Shuttle Ferry (also known as the Fast Vehicle Ferry), which will operate between Juneau and Sitka when it goes into service in 2004. The ferry will have an aluminum catamaran hull and a service speed of 32 knots. It has the approximate principal dimensions listed below and a capacity of 250 passengers and 35 standard automobiles (or 30 standard automobiles with an additional 90,000 pounds of capacity for commercial vans, trailers, and/or large recreational vehicles). Length: » 243 feet Beam: » 65 feet Draft: » 12 feet Air Draft: » 99 feet

The specific proposals pertaining to Ketchikan that were outlined in Reference [9] include the following; their updated status was obtained through References [10] and [11]. · The construction of terminal improvements at Ketchikan, which should be completed before the end of 2001. · The selection of an open-deck, heavy-weather vessel type for the Ketchikan–Metlakatla run (“Metlakatla Ferry”) to implement service prior to the completion of a road and new terminal on Annette Island. This shuttle ferry service, which will permit direct service between the Ketchikan-Saxman area and Metlakatla, has been accelerated to May 2003. · A sister ship (“Ketchikan Shuttle”) to the Sitka Shuttle ferry for service between Ketchikan and South Mitkof. Currently, it is expected to go into service in mid-2005. (Two other sister shuttles—the “Cordova Shuttle,” slated for service in early 2005, and the “Juneau Shuttle,” are expected to be in service in 2006.) · A shuttle ferry (“Southern Gateway Shuttle”) between Ketchikan and Prince Rupert. The timeline for this service remains to be determined. · The construction of two local services (one between Ketchikan and Hollis, and the proposed second for service between Coffman Cove, Mitkof Island, and Wrangell) to be owned and operated by the Inter-Island Ferry Authority, as discussed in more depth in Section 2.4.3. Notwithstanding these planned improvements, because of the smaller size and maneuverability of the new vessels, they are unlikely to impose governing constraints on any of the proposed Gravina Access Project bridge alternatives.

2.4.3 Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA)

The Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA), an Alaska port authority established in 1997 under the Municipal Port Authority Act, has initiated plans for the construction of two new passenger and vehicle ferries to meet the growing demand for ferry transportation between Prince of Wales Island communities and Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg. The first ferry is a conventional displacement monohull similar to (although somewhat smaller than) the existing AMHS vessels Aurora and Le Conte. It was designed by Elliott Bay Design Group, Ltd., Seattle. Construction of the ferry was begun by Dakota Creek Industries in Anacortes, Washington, in December 2000, and the shipyard is expected to deliver the vessel in late 2001.

2-24

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

The dimensions of this ferry—to be named Prince of Wales—are: Length: = 197.5 feet Beam: = 53.0 feet Draft: = 11.0 feet Depth: = 17.8 feet Air Draft: = 66.0 feet

The ferry will provide service on a route between Clark Bay (Hollis) on Prince of Wales Island and Ketchikan, a route currently served by Aurora. The IFA plans to provide year-round, twice-daily summer service (May through September) and once-daily winter service on this route, while anticipating the use of a sixteen-hour-long, two-shift operating day to provide this level of service. This would work out to approximately 515 calls at Ketchikan annually. In comparison, in 1998 the number of sailings between Ketchikan and Hollis by Aurora and Le Conte were, respectively, 547 and 24, for a total of 571. Therefore, when the Prince of Wales commences service and displaces the Aurora and Le Conte on this route, a small reduction in the number of port calls at Ketchikan may result. A third berth at the Ketchikan terminal is being constructed by South Coast, Inc, and the work is expected to be completed in October. When completed, this new, custom-designed facility will serve the Prince of Wales, the Ketchikan Shuttle, and also (until the Saxman Terminal is completed) the Metlakatla Ferry. The proposed second new ferry will initiate a new service linking Coffman Cove on Prince of Wales Island, South Mitkof, and Wrangell. The IFA initially plans to offer seasonal (May through September) service on this route and anticipates initiating this service with a one-shift operating day. It also anticipates that this route could experience significant growth of traffic and service over time. However, because the ferry will not routinely operate into Ketchikan, no impact on the Gravina Access Project bridge alternatives is expected.

2.5 Barges

Tug and barge transportation is the principal mode of delivery for both dry and liquid cargoes throughout southeast Alaska. The waterborne commerce statistics indicate an average of 2,223 trips per year by dry cargo barges in Tongass Narrows (including Ketchikan) for the years 1990 through 1999, as shown in Table 2. Three major common carriers that provide containerized barge service make a total of four scheduled calls per week to Ketchikan year-round, for a potential total of about 624 calls (3 carriers times 4 calls/week times 52 weeks), corresponding to 1,248 transits, or about 15% of the average total reported transits. Petroleum products are also delivered almost exclusively by barge, there being an average of 297 petroleum barge trips in Tongass Narrows (including Ketchikan) for the reported years, as shown in Table 2. It is interesting to note that the number of tanker transits has dropped to zero (with a steep drop since 1996), while there has been an increase in petroleum barge transits. Diminishing tanker traffic is believed to be due to the retirement of old tankers from the trade, so the 1999 figures (534 petroleum barge trips, which is also the maximum in the last decade) should better reflect future traffic patterns. Through-traffic by barges is a significant contributor to total annual volume, though not necessarily an issue in peak congested-traffic periods. Some barge operators have expressed a preference for transiting Tongass Narrows in the stormy winter months, as this route minimizes the exposure time crossing Dixon Entrance. In the summer months, the same operators would more likely head westward across the Gulf at Dixon Entrance, or use the alternative route through Clarence Strait to avoid the congestion in Tongass Narrows.

2-25

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

2.6 Tankers

As described in the previous subsection, the number of tanker transits in Tongass Narrows has dropped to zero, accompanied by a rise in petroleum barge transits. While it is not expected that this trend may reverse, it is worthwhile to point out the salient characteristics of tankers that have transited Tongass Narrows in years past. Coast Range and Blue Ridge, sister tanker ships owned and operated by Crowley Petroleum Transport, Inc., have called at Ketchikan. (They were formerly operated by Unocal–Standard Oil of California–but are now operated by Crowley.) According to Crowley Petroleum, these are about as large a tanker as one would ever consider sending to Ketchikan. All three vessels were built at NASSCO in San Diego. Coast Range was built in 1981; its register dimensions are 635.5-foot length, 100.1-foot beam, and 42.9-foot hull depth. (Note that the overall length may be about 685 feet.) They are propelled by steam turbines and have a nominal deadweight capacity of 40,631 long tons. The distance from keel to the top of the radar mast is 150 feet, the maximum navigation draft is about 36 feet, and the ballast condition navigation draft is 23 feet aft. This suggests the following two conditions: · Full load (inbound, loaded): Navigation draft of 36 feet and air draft of 114 feet · Ballast condition (presumptive departure condition): Navigation draft of 23 feet (aft) and air draft of 127 feet Crowley has confirmed (Reference [12]) that neither Coast Range nor Blue Ridge has sailed to Ketchikan in the last four years; nor are there plans to send them to Ketchikan in the future. To the extent that Crowley participates in fuel deliveries to Ketchikan, Crowley has stated that it would use smaller tankers or, alternatively, tank barges.

2.7 U.S. Coast Guard

The U.S. Coast Guard operates from a base located between Ketchikan and Saxman on Revillagigedo Island. Two cutters and one buoy tender (BT) operate from this base, with salient characteristics as shown in Table 12.

TABLE 12 DIMENSIONS OF U.S. COAST GUARD CUTTERS STATIONED AT KETCHIKAN Vessel Length Overall Beam Draft Air Draft (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Achusnet (Cutter) 213 40.67 13.92 100 Anthony Petit (BT) 175 36 7.9 Undetermined Naushon (Cutter) 110 21.92 7.33 60 Sources: Internet (http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/dataindx.htm) and phone conversation with Lt. Cdr. Corporon, USCG, Ketchikan, 17 September 2001

Other, larger U.S. Coast Guard buoy tenders will occasionally call at Ketchikan. These buoy tenders have a length of 225 feet, a beam of 42.67 feet, a draft of 13.5 feet, and an air draft of 90 feet.

2-26

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

The largest vessels operated by the U.S. Coast Guard are its 378-foot Hamilton class cutters and its ice breakers Polar Sea, Polar Star, and Healy. However, these Coast Guard vessels rarely, if ever, call at Ketchikan. Table 13 provides additional characteristics of these large cutters.

TABLE 13 DIMENSIONS OF LARGE U.S. COAST GUARD CUTTERS STATIONED ELSEWHERE Vessel Class Length Beam Draft Air Draft Stationed At Primary Operating Areas Overall (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Polar Class 399 83.5 28 138 Seattle Arctic and Antarctic (2 vessels) Healy 420 82 29.25 Seattle Arctic and Antarctic Hamilton 378 43 See Note 1 Throughout the world’s oceans Source: Internet (http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/dataindx.htm) Note 1. Twelve ships in class with home ports of Alameda, California (4); San Diego, California (2); Charleston, South Carolina (2); Seattle, Washington (2); and Honolulu, Hawaii (2)

2.8 U.S. Navy

There are no known significant U.S. Navy operations in Tongass Narrows. However, the U.S. Coast Guard base is designated as an emergency port facility for submarines making use of the Back Island acoustic range on Behm Canal. While U.S. Navy vessels do not routinely operate in Tongass Narrows, it is instructive to consider the principal dimensions of major classes of naval vessels as given in Table 14. (The data were obtained from Reference [13].)

2-27

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 14 CHARACTERISTIC DIMENSIONS OF LARGE U.S. NAVY VESSEL CLASSES Class Vessel Type Displacement Condition Length Beam Draft Air Draft Designation (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) CVN Aircraft Carrier 81,600 Standard 1092 134 37 207

CG Cruiser 9,100 Loaded 563 55 31 201

CGN Cruiser 11,000 Loaded 585 63 30 190

AOE Fast Combat Support 53,600 Loaded 793 107 40 ---

LHD Amphibious Assault 40,500 Loaded 844 106 27 ---

SSBN Ballistic Missile Submarine 18,700 Submerg 560 42 36.5 91 ed Source: Internet and Norman Polmer, The Ships and Aircraft of US Fleet, 12th edition, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1983. Note: SSBN 732, USS Alaska has made a courtesy port call at Ketchikan in the recent past.

2.9 Commercial Fishing Boats, Charter Vessels, and Small Craft

The Ketchikan area has seven small-boat harbors. Their capacities are shown in Table 15, and the distribution of boat types is shown in Table 16, as obtained from Reference [14].

TABLE 15 KETCHIKAN HARBOR CAPACITIES <21' 21'-30' 31'-40' 41'-50' 51'-70' 71'-100' >100' Total Bar Harbor North 53 109 61 34 7 2 0 266 Bar Harbor South 110 165 92 30 31 3 0 431 City Float 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Thomas Basin 50 30 55 27 20 0 0 182 Ryus Dock Transient and Lighterage Moorage Only Hole-in-the-Wall 17 9 2 0 0 0 0 28 Knudsen Cove 29 20 0 0 0 0 0 49 TOTAL 273 333 210 91 58 5 0 970 Source: Alaska DOT&PF, Ports & Harbors, Alaska Harbor Management System, Operations Management Report, 1994

2-28

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 16 1994 KETCHIKAN HARBOR CENSUS Recreational Fishing Commercial Other Total Charter Fishing Bar Harbor North 174 24 47 19 264 Bar Harbor South 288 21 97 13 419 City Float Transient Only Thomas Basin 90 12 73 2 177 Ryus Dock Transient and Lighterage Moorage Only Hole-in-the-Wall 25 0 3 0 28 Knudsen Cove 42 1 4 0 47 TOTAL 619 58 224 34 935 Source: Alaska DOT&PF, Ports & Harbors, Alaska Harbor Management System, Operations Management Report, 1994

In 1998, the City of Ketchikan Port & Harbors Department recorded the following: Transient boats: 3,000 to 4,000 Boat-days of transient moorage: 6,050 One-month transient moorage permits: 158 Three-month transient moorage permits: 528 Charter boats in harbors: 62 Commercial fishing boats in harbors: 800 Reserved stalls billed out in July 1998: 844 Port calls by 335 ships: 1,045

In addition to the recreational small craft, fishing charter boats, and commercial fishing boats in harbors, there are three very active boat launching ramps in the Ketchikan area: Bar Harbor, Mountain Point, and Knudsen Cove. Launching permits issued by the City of Ketchikan Port & Harbors Department in 1998 are given in Table 17.

2-29

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 17 1998 KETCHIKAN BOAT LAUNCH PERMITS Day Permits Bar Harbor 354 Mountain Point 537 Knudsen Cove 672 Total Day Permits 1,563

Annual and Semiannual Permits Commercial Permit 2 Annual Permits 436 Semiannual Permits 74 Free Annual Permits To Reserve Moorage Clients (Estimate) ~ 400 Total Annual and Semiannual Permits 912

On summer weekends, the boat launches are in continuous use for at least 12 hours per day. Estimating that an average launch or retrieval takes approximately 5 minutes, the total number of launches and retrievals on a summer weekend must be on the order of 3 times [12*60/5], which is 432 for the three launch ramps.

2.9.1 Kayaks

A large number of kayaks operate on the waters of Tongass Narrows. During the summer tourist season several outfitter and guide operations offer kayak excursions originating in Ketchikan. In addition, local residents also kayak on Tongass Narrows. Kayaks are not easily observed by sight or on radar, and hence are at risk from other vessels. The Tongass Narrows Voluntary Waterway User Guide of March 18, 1999 (Reference [15]) identifies two kayak operating zones, one (north kayak zone) extending from Hansen Float to the northern end of Pennock Island and the second (south kayak zone) extending from Thomas Basin to Pennock Island immediately north of Radenbough Cove. Appendix One of Reference [15] is the 1998 Power Vessel Operator and Kayaker Suggested Guidelines for Safe Operations in Alaska, which addresses specific operating practices intended to enhance the safety of kayak operations.

2.9.2 Personal Watercraft

Personal watercraft include vessels such as jet skis. Many personal watercraft are small and able to achieve high speeds (on the order of 50 knots). Reference [15] states: Although these craft are not restricted in Tongass Narrows, due to the high volume and variety of traffic in Tongass Narrows, mariners wishing to operate personal watercraft should not operate them in Tongass Narrows. The Ketchikan harbormaster has indicated that few personal watercraft operate there (i.e., “less than ten”), but some personal watercraft operate from Knudsen Cove and south of town.

2-30

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

2.10 Gravina Island Ferry

The Gravina Island Ferry currently adds to the traffic congestion in Tongass Narrows. Furthermore, it represents crossing traffic. If a bridge is constructed, the ferry operation might be stopped, and would therefore no longer be a traffic congestion factor. If the expanded-ferry-service alternative is selected, then there would be a nominal increase in cross-channel traffic. However, long-channel traffic enjoys right-of-way privilege and the cross-channel ferries maneuver so as to avoid impeding such traffic.

2.11 Floatplanes

Floatplanes landing and taking off from Tongass Narrows are currently subject to the operational guidelines in Reference [15]. That guide identifies two narrow floatplane operating zones, one in front of the Ketchikan waterfront, and one hugging the Gravina Island shore and extending northwest from the Ketchikan Airport terminal. A third floatplane operating area is located in the vicinity of Ward Cove. As described in the Tongass Narrows Voluntary Waterway User Guide, floatplane traffic on Tongass Narrows is seasonally quite heavy, comprising in excess of 500 takeoffs and landings on an average summer day. Aviation is the topic of a separate reconnaissance report that complements this report, and which should be consulted for a more thorough examination of aviation issues.

2-31

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

3—West Coast Bridges and Aerial Cable Crossings

Existing West Coast bridges and aerial cable crossings present significant constraints on the ultimate size and operations of large shipping. The Lions Gate Bridge (located at the First Narrows in Vancouver, BC) and the Seymour Narrows power cable crossing (located north of Campbell River) have recently been acknowledged as design constraints for the new U.S.-built cruise ships to be constructed at Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi for American Classic Voyages (AMCV). At 180 feet vertical clearance, the Seymour Narrows power cable crossing is the current controlling constraint for cruise ship traffic. Before 1995, the vertical clearance was 165 feet. The cable crossing was raised in 1995 at a cost on the order of $300,000 (U.S.). Officials at BC Hydro have indicated that the cable could be raised another 3.0 meters (9.8 feet) at a cost probably not exceeding $100,000 (U.S.). This additional three meters of clearance could be achieved by increasing the tension in the cable and reducing the catenary sag. However, this procedure would have the adverse consequence of increasing the fatigue of the power conductor and would thereby increase the risk of interruptions to the electrical power service. Officials at BC Hydro have also speculated that, for a cost in excess of $1,000,000 (U.S.), the cable could be raised further, to 200 feet, thus achieving a clearance equal to that of the Lions Gate Bridge. Raising the clearance to that extent would entail building new towers and guy arrangements, which accounts for the substantial cost. It is important to note that the allowable vertical clearance at the Seymour Narrows cable crossing is likely less than the clearances discussed in the previous two paragraphs. This is due to the following pertinent caution from paragraph 126, page 12, of Sailing Direction –British Columbia Coast (South Portion), issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Canada (Reference [16]): An overhead cable may conduct high voltages and contact, or even close proximity to one, poses extreme danger. If the clearance to avoid a dangerous electrical discharge between a cable and a vessel passing under it is not obtainable from local authorities, then 5 m (16 ft.) less than the vertical clearance should be allowed. Sufficient clearance must also be allowed under an overhead cable bearing in mind that the actual clearance will differ from the charted clearance due to changes in atmospheric and water level conditions. Therefore, the useable vertical clearance at the Seymour Narrows cable crossing is closer to 164 feet at present, rather than 180 feet. It is possible that timing a ship’s passage for near low tide might add about ten feet to the effective clearance. However, this is not always practical and is not without risk. Table 18 presents the vertical clearances (uncorrected by the restriction in Reference [16]) for significant bridges and cable crossings on the west coast of the United States and Canada.

3-1

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 18 EXISTING WEST COAST BRIDGES AND CABLE CROSSINGS Bridge or Cable Crossing Location Maximum Vertical Reference for Comments Clearance Vertical Clearance* Near Island Bridge Kodiak, AK 101 feet MHHW 200 feet horizontal clearance Seymour Narrows Campbell River, BC 55 m (180 feet) MHHW Most Alaska-bound Cable Crossing cruise traffic transits Seymour Narrows Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver, BC 61 m (200 feet) MHHW Most Alaska-bound cruise traffic passes under Lions Gate Bridge Tacoma Narrows Tacoma, WA 180 feet MHHW Bridge Astoria highway Astoria, OR 205 feet MLLW Access to Swan bridge Island shipyards Longview highway Longview, WA 185 feet# Columbia River Access to Swan bridge Datum Island shipyards Saint Johns highway Portland, OR 205 feet Columbia River Access to Swan bridge Datum Island shipyards BN RR Lift Bridge Portland, OR 200 feet Columbia River 499 feet of horizontal Datum clearance; access to Swan Island shipyards Columbia River Various 216 feet MLLW Access to Swan Cable Crossings Island shipyards Golden Gate Bridge San Francisco, CA 225 feet MHHW San Francisco – San Francisco, CA 204 feet in MHHW 220 feet in some Oakland Bay Bridge recommended spans with cautions channel regarding span sag due to traffic live load & temperature Vincent Thomas Los Angeles, CA 185 feet MHHW Old cruise ship Bridge terminal is upstream of bridge, but new terminal is down- stream of bridge. Coronado Bridge San Diego, CA 195 feet MHHW Access to NASSCO shipyard * MLLW = mean lower low water; MHHW = mean higher high water. # According to NOAA Chart 18524. The U.S. Coast Pilot states: “The Lewis and Clark Bridge, at Mile 57.3 (66.0) between Longview and Rainier, has a fixed span with a clearance of 187 feet.”

To provide a sense of the horizontal navigation clearances with which marine pilots must contend, Table 19 lists the horizontal clearances at a number of bridge crossings and channels worldwide.

3-2

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 19 AVAILABLE HORIZONTAL CLEARANCES AT SOME BRIDGE CROSSINGS AND CHANNELS WORLDWIDE Bridge Bridge Type Horizontal Vertical Clearance Volume of Large Ship Large Ship Types Clearance Traffic Coos Bay, OR Railroad 197 feet Unlimited 198 ships in 1999 100% dry cargo (but bridge (swing bridge) with drafts historical traffic Highway 149 feet exceeding 20 feet included tankers) Corpus Harbor 300 feet 138 feet 2,836 ships in 71% tankers and Christi, TX bridge 1999 with drafts 29% passenger & dry exceeding 20 feet cargo Burlington Lift 499 feet 200 feet (Up) Approximately 100% dry cargo Northern R.R. bridge 845 ships in 1999 Bridge, with drafts Portland, OR exceeding 20 feet Houston Ship 500 feet # 175 feet # 10,016 ships in 50.5% tankers and Channel, TX 1999 with drafts 49.5% passenger & exceeding 20 feet dry cargo Coronado 600 feet 195 feet Two 600-ft. Includes large Bridge, San spans available commercial vessels Diego, CA supporting two- and large naval way traffic vessels Mississippi 750 feet # 133 feet # Two-way traffic River, New Orleans, LA Lions Gate » 1270 feet 200 feet Approximately 1,053,989 cruise Bridge, 6,098 transits by passengers in 2000 Vancouver, large ships in and 76 million metric BC 2000 tons of cargo Ketchikan, AK 781 ships in 1999 100% passenger & with draft dry cargo (dominated exceeding 20 feet by passenger, but historical traffic includes some tankers & dry cargo) # U.S. Coast Guard bridge guide clearance for specified navigable water

Table 19 suggests that ships are able to navigate safely under a variety of conditions through bridge crossings and channels that offer horizontal clearances significantly less than those recommended by the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses.

3.1 Horizontal Navigation Clearances at Coos Bay, OR

Coos Bay, OR, was selected as an example of one of the channels offering low horizontal clearance (based on the ratio of horizontal clearance to ship beam). Following are the salient characteristics of the channel. Depth. Channel depth is 47 feet/14.33 meters MLLW at entrance range; channel depth is maintained at 37 feet/11.28 meters MLLW for the length of the 15.2-mile/ 24.5-kilometer channel. 3-3

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Width. The deep-draft navigation channel is wide enough to allow safe transit of vessels entering the bay. The channel width is approximately 1,150 feet/ 350.7 meters at the entrance mark, and is reduced to approximately 700 feet/213.5 meters at Channel Mile 0, then reduced through the entrance jetties to Channel Mile 1.0. From that point to the railroad bridge (see clearances below) at Channel Mile 9.2, the authorized width is 300 feet/91.5 meters; the authorized width from Channel Mile 9.2 through Channel Mile 15.0 is 400 feet/122.0 meters. Clearances. Horizontal clearance is 197 feet/60.08 meters at the railroad bridge, Channel Mile 9.2; 149 feet/45.45 meters vertical restriction (0 tide) at McCullough Highway Bridge (U.S. 101), Channel Mile 9.5. Tidal Ranges and Current.. Mean is 5.6 feet/1.7 meters; diurnal is 7.3 feet/2.2 meters; maximum is 12 feet/3.7 meters; tidal ebb is to 3 knots. Winds and Weather. Prevailing winds are from the northwest. Storm events may produce winds from the southwest and southeast.. The railroad swing bridge at Coos Bay, OR, is instructive regarding the horizontal clearances and the objective navigation challenges with which expert marine pilots may contend. Figure 13 shows the general setting of the bridges at Coos Bay.

FIGURE 13 GENERAL SETTING AT COOS BAY, OREGON

The highway bridge, with vertical clearance of 149 feet, runs from North Bend north towards Russell Point. The railroad swing bridge is located a short distance to the west. Coos Bay is subject to current from the Coos River, which empties into Coos Bay, and the vessel track between the highway and railroad bridges is subject to sheering tidal currents from Haynes Inlet to the north. Figures 14 and 15 show additional views and details of the deep-draft ship channel passing under the highway bridge and through the railroad swing bridge.

3-4

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

FIGURE 14 SHIP CHANNELS AT COOS BAY, OREGON

Figure 14 clearly shows that outbound ships must negotiate the Coos Bay highway bridge while negotiating a significant bend (North Bend) in the channel. Once clear of the highway bridge, outbound ships are exposed to the combined effects of the sheering currents from Haynes Inlet and the wind. Ships typically line up to transit the north opening of the railroad swing bridge (see detail in Figure 15).

3-5

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

FIGURE 15 DEEP DRAFT SHIP CHANNEL AT COOS BAY BRIDGES

The horizontal clearance at the swing bridge is 197 feet. Furthermore, because the bridge is a swing bridge, the ship must stay carefully aligned with the channel for a distance of about 400 feet while passing through the bridge. Typical ships calling at Coos Bay are Panamax log carriers and bulk commodity carriers with lengths on the order of 800 feet and beams up to 108 feet, leaving a nominal 44 feet on each side of the ship when it is passing through the swing bridge. The typical ship calling at Coos Bay is a low-powered, single-screw vessel with a conventional rudder. Some ships may not even have bow thrusters. Ships are typically operating free (without tug assistance or tethered tug escort) when transiting the Coos Bay railroad swing bridge.

3-6

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

4—Cruise Ship Traffic Projections

In investigating ways to improve access between Ketchikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, it is important to take into account the prospect of future large-ship traffic congestion in Tongass Narrows. It is also possible that such congestion may be exacerbated by bridges with low vertical clearance. Both of these issues have been addressed in a separate report, “Cruise Ship Traffic Projections – Technical Memorandum” (Reference [17]). The relevant findings from that report are presented in this section. This projection of future cruise ship traffic calling at Ketchikan is based principally on Alaska cruise passenger demographic data and population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau.

4.1 Projected Cruise Passengers and Port Calls

As shown in Table 6 and Figures 4, 5 and 6 (Section 2.2), there has been a steady growth in the number of cruise ship passengers and port calls at Ketchikan over the past decade. Also of note is the trend seen in Table 7: The actual number of cruise ship passengers arriving at Ketchikan in the most recent three years is greater than the rated passenger capacity. (Capacity ratios exceeding 100% are possible because cruise ship capacity is rated on the basis of lower-berth capacity.) The significance of this is that all cruise ships are running essentially sold-out and full. As shown in Table 6, the aggregate passenger capacity of large cruise ships calling at Ketchikan in 2001 is 640,524. Although the actual number of passengers may vary slightly from the aggregate cruise ship passenger capacity, the following analysis is based on aggregate cruise ship capacity to maintain consistency. Figure 16 depicts five different projections of the minimum aggregate annual cruise passenger capacity calling at Ketchikan. The high estimate with growth in market penetration exceeds one million passengers beginning in 2007 and two million passengers beginning in 2041. (Note that a logarithmic scale is used for passenger capacity.) The middle estimate with growth in market penetration exceeds the one-million mark beginning in 2012. In the absence of any further growth in market penetration, the one-million passenger mark is passed in 2024, 2031 and 2051, respectively, by the high, middle, and low estimates.

4-1

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Estimated Annual Aggregate Cruise Ship Passenger Capacity for Cruise Ships Calling at Ketchikan 10000000

5000000 High Estimate With Growth in Market Penetration

Middle Estimate With Growth in Market Penetration

1000000

High Estimate No Growth in Market Penetration 500000

Middle Estimate No Growth in Market Penetration Historical Aggregate Annual Cruise Ship Passenger Capacity Low Estimate No Growth in Market Penetration

100000 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

h:\1999\99089\cruise_ship_traffic_projections\us_census_projections\projected_cruise ship calls.xls 24 July 2001 YEAR

FIGURE 16 PROJECTED MINIMUM AGGREGATE ANNUAL CRUISE PASSENGER CAPACITY

Figure 17 depicts the assumptions made regarding average cruise ship passenger capacity, and shows that capacity has increased very rapidly over the decade from 1991 to 2001 (at a 7.7% effective annual compound rate). The average cruise ship passenger capacity in 2001 is 1,664 passengers (Table 6), and the largest- capacity cruise ship calling at Ketchikan in 2001 can carry 2,114 passengers (lower berth), as identified in Table 3. In 2002 a “Grand-Class” vessel (Princess Cruises) with a capacity of 2,600 passengers is scheduled to operate to Alaskan destinations. Ships with capacities of up to 3,100 passengers are now entering service (though not known to be destined for the Alaska cruise market), and even larger vessels are planned, as previously noted with reference to Tables 4 and 5.

4-2

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Assumed Average Cruise Ship Passenger Capacity for Cruise Ships Calling at Ketchikan 2500

High and Middle Estimates With Growth in Market Penetration 2200

Low Estimate Without Growth in Market Penetration 2000 2000 Most Probable Without Growth in Market Penetration 1830 High Estimate Without Growth in Market Penetration 1662

1500

Historical

1000

500 Assumed Average Cruise Ship Passenger Capacity

0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 YEAR h:\1999\99089\cruise_ship_traffic_projections\us_census_projections\projected_cruise ship calls.xls 24 July 2001

FIGURE 17 ASSUMED AVERAGE CRUISE SHIP PASSENGER CAPACITY

Because of the rapid increase of capacity, the rise of cruise ship calls at Ketchikan over the decade 1991 to 2001 was slow, from 322 to 385 (as shown in Figure 18), despite a 251% increase in passenger volume. All of the assumed trends in average cruise ship passenger capacity (shown in Figure 17) are less than what has occurred over the past decade. These assumed trends in cruise ship passenger capacity, taken together with the projected passenger demand shown in Figure 16, yield the estimated cruise ship calls shown in Figure 18. The high-series estimate with growth in market penetration exceeds 700 large cruise ship calls annually by 2019. The middle-series estimate with growth exceeds 500 large cruise ships by 2008, and without growth achieves 500 by 2020. The high-series estimate without growth exceeds 700 calls by 2036.

4-3

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Estimated Ketchikan Cruise Ship Calls 1000

High Estimate High Estimate 900 With Growth in Market Penetration No Growth in Market Penetration Middle Estimate 800 With Growth in Market Penetration

700

600 Middle Estimate No Growth in Market Penetration 500 Low Estimate No Growth in Market Penetration

Cruise Ship Calls 400

300 Historical High and middle estimates with growth in market penetration includes increases in cruise ship passenger capacity over a twenty year period from 2001 to 2021 with constant capacity of 2200 thereafter. High estimate without growth in market 200 penetration assumes a constant cruise ship passenger capacity of 1662. Middle estimate without growth in market penetration includes increases in passenger capacity to 1830 over twenty years. Low estimate without growth includes increases 100 in passenger capacity to 2000 over twenty years.

0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

h:\1999\99089\cruise_ship_traffic_projections\us_census_projections\projected_cruise ship calls.xls 24 July 2001 YEAR

FIGURE 18 ESTIMATED KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP CALLS

4.2 Projected Cruise Ship Traffic Density

Table 20 presents statistics for large cruise ship calls at Ketchikan during the 2001 cruise season.

TABLE 20 2001 KETCHIKAN CRUISE SEASON – LARGE CRUISE SHIP CALL STATISTICS Month: May June July August September Cruise Ship Calls 54 90 88 90 63 Avg. Calls per Day 1.92 3.00 2.84 2.90 2.25 Peak Calls 4 5 4 4 4

The 2001 cruise season calendar indicates that there are 34 dates on which four large cruise ships call at Ketchikan, and one occasion, 23 June, when five large cruise ships call. Figure 19 shows the predicted trends in mid-summer average daily cruise ship calls at Ketchikan.

4-4

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Ketchikan, Mid-Summer

Middle Estimate High Estimate 7 With Growth in Market Penetration With Growth in Market Penetration

High Estimate 6

2001 Peak Cruise Ship Traffic 5

Most Probable

Low Estimate 2001 Mid-Summer 3

No growth in market penetration

2 High and middle estimates with growth in market penetration includes increases in cruise ship passenger capacity over twenty years to 2200 beginning in 2021 and Average Ketchikan Cruise Ship Calls per Day thereafter. High estimate without growth in market penetration assumes a constant cruise ship passenger capacity of 1662. Middle estimate without growth in market 1 penetration includes increases in passenger capacity to 1830 over twenty years. Low estimate without growth includes increases in passenger capacity to 2000 over twenty years.

0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 YEAR

FIGURE 19 ESTIMATED AVERAGE MID-SUMMER DAILY KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP CALLS

4.3 Potential Limiting Factors

Factors that may potentially limit the growth in cruise ship traffic projected in Figures 16, 18 and 19 include: · Income (i.e., income of potential cruise ship passengers) · Tolerance of residents to growth in tourism · Inadequate growth in destination attractions · Competition from other markets and attractions · Cruise ship berthing space · Large-vessel traffic congestion in Tongass Narrows Each of these potential limiting factors is addressed in Reference [17]. Of primary importance to this report is the last factor: the potential for large vessel traffic congestion in Tongass Narrows, including the potential adverse impacts of any bridges of low vertical clearance spanning Tongass Narrows.

4-5

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

4.3.1 Large-Vessel Traffic Congestion in Tongass Narrows

As described in Section 1.1, vessel operations are restricted by 33 CFR §162.240 to speeds not exceeding seven knots in the region of Tongass Narrows, bounded to the north by Tongass Narrows Buoy 9 and to the south by Tongass Narrows East Channel Regulatory marker at position 55 deg. 19' 22.0" N, 131 deg. 36' 40.5" W and Tongass Narrows West Channel Regulatory marker at position 55 deg. 19' 28.5" N, 131 deg. 39' 09.7" W. The trackline distance from Buoy 9 to the cruise ship terminal is about 3 nautical miles (n.m.), and from Idaho Rock to the terminal, about 2.1 n.m. At 7 knots, the running time to the north is about 26 minutes, and to the south, about 18 minutes. Actual speeds may be less than 7 knots, depending on the ship, the weather, the location within the Narrows, and marine traffic in the vicinity. According to the 2001 Ketchikan cruise ship calendar, the average port stay for southbound cruise ships is 8.0 hours, and the average port stay for northbound cruise ships is 8.5 hours. Seventy-three percent of the cruise ships calling at Ketchikan in 2001 (280 of 385) are southbound and 27% are northbound. Ketchikan and Juneau cruise ship calendars show that cruise ships rarely arrive before 6:00 a.m., and nearly always arrive no later than 1:00 p.m. Departures are almost always before 9:00 p.m. . There are 17.2 hours of daylight (sunrise to sunset) in Ketchikan at the beginning of June and 14.1 hours at the end of August. Table 21 is an example of a daily cruise ship schedule for Ketchikan that provides 8.5 hours of port time to each vessel and ½ hour arriving and departing Ketchikan as the sole large cruise ship in Tongass Narrows. This suggests the ability of Tongass Narrows to support up to twelve cruise ship arrivals per day without large-ship congestion in Tongass Narrows. The largest projected average daily cruise ship traffic in 2051 is eight cruise ships per day. The ability to handle twelve cruise ships per day provides a reasonable allowance for peak traffic events, as compared with average traffic. Furthermore, the capacity of Tongass Narrows could be doubled (to 24 cruise ships) without introducing two-way traffic in the narrow passages, because ships arriving from the north (and departing to the south) and ships arriving from the south (and departing to the north) use different channel segments. Thus each ship arrival and departure in Table 21 could represent two ships—one southbound and one northbound. Other considerations affecting cruise ship scheduling at Ketchikan must be recognized, including such factors as: · Timing of the tide and current in Seymour Narrows · Arrivals and departures from Vancouver, BC · Berth availability and size relative to cruise ship size · Arrivals and departures from other Alaska ports and destinations · Special events in destination ports Also, as transit time between ports and to and from Seymour Narrows depends on the cruising speed, each ship will have unique scheduling requirements. In a port such as Ketchikan, the overall scheduling problem is exacerbated by any need to coordinate arrivals and departures with other large cruise ships, though berth availability certainly already imposes such coordination (see Section 9.5 of Reference [17]). The potential for congestion is, therefore, not as much for congestion of underway traffic in the narrow passages of Tongass Narrows as it is for harbor congestion if adequate cruise ship berthing is not available. Section 6 addresses the potential impacts of bridges with low vertical clearances on marine navigation in Tongass Narrows and Ketchikan Harbor. Before that, in Section 5, some pertinent navigation issues are discussed.

4-6

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 21 DAILY KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP SCHEDULE (EXAMPLE)

10:00 PM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00

Ship #1 Arrival Ship #1 In Port Ship #1 Departure Ship #2 Arrival Ship #2 In Port Ship #2 Departure Ship #3 Arrival Ship #3 In Port Ship #3 Departure Ship #4 Arrival Ship #4 In Port Ship #4 Departure Ship #5 Arrival Ship #5 In Port Ship #5 Departure Ship #6 Arrival Ship #6 In Port Ship #6 Departure Ship #7 Arrival Ship #7 In Port Ship #7 Departure Ship #8 Arrival Ship #8 In Port Ship #8 Departure Ship #9 Arrival Ship #9 In Port Ship #9 Departure Ship #10 Arrival Ship #10 In Port Ship #10 Departure Ship #11 Arrival Ship #11 In Port Ship #11 Departure Ship #12 Arrival Ship #12 In Port Ship #12 Departure

4-7

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

5—Navigation Issues

The following are specific navigation issues and concerns identified through discussions with ship pilots operating in Ketchikan, and others.

5.1 Navigation Restrictions During Construction

Legitimate concern has been expressed regarding navigation restrictions that may be imposed during a bridge (or other civil structure) construction. This question extends to both the nature of the restrictions and their timing. For instance, it would be preferable if the most severe restrictions were limited to the off-season for the cruise and tourist industry.

5.2 Bridge Structure Effect on Wind

Ship pilots have expressed concern that the introduction of a bridge structure might modify the wind patterns on Tongass Narrows.

5.3 Bridge Structure Effect on Current

Ship pilots are also concerned that the introduction of a bridge structure might modify current patterns in the waters of Tongass Narrows.

5.4 Reflection of Bow Waves by Bridge Piers

Ship pilots are concerned that the reflection of bow waves off bridge piers might cause their vessel to shear off course.

5.5 Radar Shadow of Bridges

Another concern of ship pilots is the possibility of a major bridge creating a radar shadow that would inhibit the ability to image beyond the bridge.

5.6 Ship Pilot Preferences for Bridge Alignment

Ship pilots prefer bridge alignments that cross at right angles to the shipping channel. Oblique alignments extend the duration of vessel interaction with the bridge, restrict heading and lateral position, and are visually disorienting. 5-1

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

5.7 Horizontal Clearance Between Bridge Piers

The magnitude of an acceptable minimum horizontal clearance has been investigated. Two authorities have been identified that have published guidelines for horizontal clearance between bridge piers. The first is AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and the second is PIANC (Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses).

5.7.1 AASHTO Guidelines Regarding Horizontal Clearance

The following excerpts are quoted from AASHTO Section 8, “Bridge Protection Planning Guidelines,” Subsection 8.5.1, Horizontal Clearances: · Bridges with main spans, S, less than 2 or 3 times the design vessel length, LOA, are particularly vulnerable to vessel collision. · Bridges with main spans, S, less than 2 times the channel width, C, are particularly vulnerable to collision. · Piers located less than 2 or 3 times the pier width from the edge of channel, YN and YW , are particularly vulnerable to collision. · The centerline of the navigable channel should coincide with the center of the main span. The maximum offset between the centerline of the channel and of the bridge should not exceed 10-15% of the main span length, S. The length of cruise ships transiting Tongass Narrows may equal or slightly exceed 1,000 feet. The natural channel width in the vicinity of Charcoal Point is less than 1,000 feet. Given these circumstances, only those solutions that include spans equal to the natural channel width could be construed as satisfying the AASHTO guidelines for minimized vulnerability to vessel collision.

5.7.2 PIANC Guidelines Regarding Horizontal Clearance

PIANC, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, is an international organization concerned with technical aspects of navigation and port infrastructure, and with associated safety, economic and environmental matters. PIANC was founded in 1885 and is sponsored by 40 national governments, including the United States, which joined in 1902. The National Commission, composed of 11 members, is the central governing body of the U.S. Section. The Chairman is the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works); the President is the Deputy Commander for Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and the Secretary is employed by the U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources. The U.S. Section has established seven committees to carry out the Association’s work. The four technical committees are Environment, Shallow-Draft Waterways and Ports, Deep-Draft Waterways and Ports, and Sport and Recreation Navigation. These technical committees complement the structure of the international organization. Reference [18], “Approach Channels – A Guide for Design,” was developed by a joint working group of PIANC and IAPH (International Association of Ports and Harbors), in cooperation with IMPA (International Maritime Pilots Association) and IALA (International Association of Lighthouse Authorities).

5-2

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

The following is from the foreword to Reference [18]: Modern design of approach channels came into existence as a separate discipline in the 1960’s, particularly for the development of deepwater ports. The design of channel dimensions was first considered by Working Group 2 of the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) International Oil Tankers Commission (IOTC) and the report was published in 1973. The IOTC work was then reviewed some years later by Working Group 4 of the PIANC International Commission for the Reception of Large Ships (ICORELS), whose report was published in 1980. The ICORELS Report contained a detailed review, but the Commission concluded that in the state of knowledge as it then stood, its general recommendations would have to be conservative, but it left open the possibility that its recommendations might be capable of refinement as knowledge developed. Since the ICORELS Report, there have been considerable developments, not only in knowledge, but also in technology and analytical techniques: · firstly, in research as to ship behavior and in the development of guidance systems · secondly, in computer technology and in mathematical and physical modeling systems (using the research on ship behavior), enabling vessel tracking to be predicted taking account of human factors · thirdly, in experience of large ships transiting port approach channels over a number of years, including some channels which have lower width/design ship beam ratios than the ICORELS general recommendation. Recognizing the need for a review of the recommendations presented in previous reports, PIANC and the International Association of Ports & Harbors (IAPH) set up a joint Working Group (No. 30) and invited the participation of the International Maritime Pilots Association (IMPA) and the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) to assess and, if necessary, update existing reports, to provide practical guidelines for the design of approach channels and fairways. Central to this work were the results collected by an earlier PIANC Working Group (No. 7) and these have been combined with recent developments in design techniques to form the basis of this report. Its intention is to provide practicing engineers with guidelines and data which will allow them to design a channel for a given ship or mix of ship types or, alternatively, enable assessment of the suitability of an existing channel for a proposed change in ship type or operation. The intention has been to provide practical guidelines which are readily usable and easy to understand and justify. In accordance with the Terms of Reference which are given in Chapter 9, a preliminary Report was prepared dealing with aspects of Concept Design, and this Report was published jointly by PIANC/IAPH in April 1995. However, the present report covers all aspects of Channel Design (Concept and Detailed Design).” Chapter 5 of Reference [18] describes a concept design method for channels. The method is based on a design ship (or ships) and determines, through an accumulation of factors, the minimum recommended channel width as a multiple of the design ship beam. In addition to the intrinsic maneuverability of the design ship(s) (good, moderate, or poor), the considered factors are: a. Vessel speed (knots): classed as fast, moderate, or slow b. Prevailing cross wind (knots)

5-3

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

c. Prevailing cross current (knots) d. Prevailing longitudinal current (knots) e. Significant wave height and wave length (meters) f. Aids to navigation · Excellent with shore traffic control · Good · Moderate with infrequent poor visibility · Moderate with frequent poor visibility g. Bottom surface · Smooth and soft · Smooth or sloping and hard · Rough and hard h. Depth of waterway relative to design ship draft i. Cargo hazard level: low, medium, or high j. Additional width for passing distance in two-way traffic k. Additional width for bank clearance

FIGURE 20 ELEMENTS OF CHANNEL WIDTH (COPY OF FIGURE 5.11 FROM REFERENCE [18])

5-4

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

As stated in Chapter 5 of Reference [18]: The bottom width w of the waterway (Figure 5.11), is given for a one-way channel by:

n w = w BM + å w i + w Br + w Bg i = 1 and for a two-way channel by:

n w = 2 w BM + 2 å w i + w Br + w Bg + å w P i = 1

where, as shown in Figure 5.11, wBr and wBg are the bank clearances on the ‘red’ and ‘green’ sides of the channel, S wP is passing distance (comprising the sum of a separation distance based on ship speed and an additional distance based on traffic density) and the wi are . . . based on factors given in Table 5.2 of Reference [18]. The factors considered in Table 5.2 of Reference [1] are synoptically described as (a) through (k) above.

The basic maneuvering width wBM, as a multiple of the beam B of the design ship, are given in . . . [Table 22 below]. This basic maneuvering width is that required by the design ship to sail safely in very favorable environmental operating conditions.

TABLE 22 BASIC MANOEUVRING LANE (FROM REFERENCE [18]) Ship Maneuverability Good Moderate Poor

Basic Maneuvering Lane, wBM 1.3 B 1.5 B 1.8 B

To the basic maneuvering lane width wBM are added additional widths (to allow for the

effects of wind, current, etc.) which gives the maneuvering lane wM . The additional widths are given in Table 5.2 of Reference [18] and synoptically described as (a) through (k) above. In several instances, the treatment of the factors considered in Table 5.2 of Reference [18] exhibit dependencies on other considerations such as water depth or vessel speed. Table 23 indicates these dependencies. PIANC’s concept design method has been applied to Tongass Narrows using the Carnival Conquest Class of cruise ships (this class includes Carnival Conquest, Carnival Glory and Carnival Victory) and the AMHS’s largest ferry, the M/V Columbia, as design ships. The principal dimensions of the two ships are given in Tables 24 and 25, and the results are summarized in Tables 26 and 27.

5-5

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 23 DEPENDENCIES IN TABLE 5.2 OF REFERENCE [18] Length Draft Speed Traffic Inner vs. Outer Bank Density Channel Characteristics (a) Speed X (b) Cross Wind X (c) Cross Current X (d) Longitudinal Current X (e) Wave Height & Length X X (f) Aids to Navigation (g) Bottom Surface X (h) Depth of Waterway X (i) Cargo Hazard Level (j) Two-way Traffic X X X (k) Bank Clearance X X X

TABLE 24 PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS OF CARNIVAL CONQUEST CLASS CRUISE SHIP (DESIGN SHIP CLASS) Vessel Carnival Conquest, Glory, or Victory Length 894.0 feet Beam 141.7 feet Draft 27.2 feet Speed 7.0 knots Note: A speed of 7 knots is used, because speed in Tongass Narrows is restricted by federal regulation to 7 knots.

TABLE 25 PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS OF M/V COLUMBIA AMHS FERRY (DESIGN SHIP CLASS) Vessel M/V Columbia Length 418.0 feet Beam 85.0 feet Draft 17.6 feet Speed 7.0 knots Note: A speed of 7 knots is used, because speed in Tongass Narrows is restricted by federal regulation to 7 knots.

5-6

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 26 MINIMUM TONGASS NARROWS CHANNEL WIDTH (FEET) ESTIMATED USING PIANC CONCEPT DESIGN METHOD Aids to Traffic Wind Speed Water Depth Intrinsic Vessel Maneuverability (feet) Navigation (knots) (feet) Good Moderate Poor Good One-way 10.15 40 411 439 482 light 41 326 354 397 density 33 40 482 510 553 Two-way 10.15 40 609 638 680 heavy 41 524 553 595 density 33 40 680 709 751 Moderate One-way 10.15 40 468 496 538 with light 41 383 411 453 Frequent density 33 40 538 567 609 Poor Visibility Two-way 10.15 40 666 694 737 heavy 41 581 609 652 density 33 40 737 765 808 Minimum 326 354 397 Maximum 737 765 808 Note: Design ship is Carnival Conquest class cruise ship

TABLE 27 MINIMUM TONGASS NARROWS CHANNEL WIDTH (FEET) AT LOW LEVEL BRIDGE ESTIMATED USING PIANC CONCEPT DESIGN METHOD Aids to Traffic Wind Speed Water Depth Intrinsic Vessel Maneuverability (feet) Navigation (knots) (feet) Good Moderate Poor Good One-way 10.15 40 195.5 212.5 238.0 light 41 195.5 212.5 238 density 33 40 238.0 255.0 280.5 Two-way 10.15 40 314.5 331.5 357.0 heavy 41 314.5 331.5 357.0 density 33 40 357.0 374.0 399.5 Moderate One-way 10.15 40 229.5 246.5 272.0 with light 41 229.5 246.5 272.0 Frequent density Poor 33 40 272.0 289.0 314.5 Visibility Two-way 10.15 40 348.5 365.5 391.0 heavy 41 348.5 365.5 391.0 density 33 40 391.0 408.0 433.5 Minimum 195.5 212.5 238.0 Maximum 391.0 408.0 433.5 Note: Design AMHS vessel is M/V Columbia, the largest AMHS vessel.

5-7

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

In the calculation of the estimated minimum channel widths shown in Tables 26 and 27, the following assumptions were made in all cases: · (i) Cross current of 0.5 knots · (ii) Longitudinal current of 3.0 knots · (iii) Low cargo hazard · (iv) Steep and hard bank configuration with a rough and hard bottom surface According to the PIANC concept design method, under the most favorable of assumptions and circumstances, the minimum recommended channel width could be as little as 326 feet, while under the least favorable of assumptions and circumstances, it might be as large as 808 feet. Restricting attention to cases with two-way traffic and moderate aids to navigation with “frequent poor visibility,” the least recommended width grows to 581 feet for a vessel with good intrinsic maneuverability and to 609 feet for vessels with moderate intrinsic maneuverability. It is pertinent to present here the following evaluation on the incidence of two-way traffic in Tongass Narrows. (This assessment was submitted recently in a separate communication; see Reference [19].) Marine pilots and cruise industry representatives have indicated that two-way traffic of large cruise ships in Tongass Narrows is rare. Furthermore, AMHS masters have indicated that it is routine to make passing arrangements by radio and that vessels will often agree that one vessel will loiter in order to avoid a two-way passage in Tongass Narrows. To check the assumption of one-way traffic, a time-and-motion analysis of the 2001 Ketchikan cruise ship calendar was performed to identify any scheduled cruise ship port calls and departures that would seem to generate two-way traffic during the 2001 season. It was assumed that ten minutes be allowed for docking or undocking based on the arrival and departure times published in the cruise ship calendar. Once underway, 35 minutes was allowed for vessels to transit between the cruise ship dock and Peninsula Point to the north, and 25 minutes was allowed for vessels to transit between the cruise ship dock and Potter Rock to the south. The results of an analysis of 385 large cruise ship calls at Ketchikan between May 4 and September 28, 2001 (105 northbound calls and 280 southbound calls) was that there were no instances of two-way traffic in Tongass Narrows north of the cruise ship dock and five instances of two-way traffic in Tongass Narrows south of the cruise ship dock. Those five instances are listed in Table 28, below.

TABLE 28 INCIDENCE OF TWO-WAY TRAFFIC IN TONGASS NARROWS IN 2001 Date Northbound Southbound Approximate Time 23 June Bremen Sun Princess 6:00 to 6:30 p.m. Norwegian Wind 13 July Seven Seas Mariner Norwegian Sky 1:00 PM 27 July Seven Seas Mariner Norwegian Sky 1:00 PM 10 August Seven Seas Mariner Norwegian Sky 1:00 PM 7 September Seven Seas Mariner Norwegian Sky 1:00 PM

5-8

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

6—Potential Navigation Impacts of Bridges

Earlier versions of this report briefly considered the consequences of blockages of Tongass Narrows that would result from some of the identified bridge alternatives. This section addresses the potential navigation impacts that would result from the bridge alternatives that have since been selected for further evaluation under the current phase of the project: 1. Alternative C3(a) or C4: A bridge in the vicinity of Ketchikan airport, with a vertical clearance of 200 feet 2. Alternative C3(b) or D1: A bridge in the vicinity of Ketchikan airport, with a vertical clearance of 120 feet 3. Alternative F1: A dual-bridge crossing south of the cruise ship docks, with a 200-foot-high bridge over East Channel (from Revillagigedo Island to Pennock Island) and a 120-foot-high bridge over West Channel (from Pennock Island to Gravina Island) 4. Alternative F3: A dual-bridge crossing south of the cruise ship docks, traversing Pennock Island, with a 60-foot-high bridge over East Channel and a 200-foot-high bridge over West Channel. Other potential impacts of the proposed bridges, especially the potential reduction in port calls and the economic impacts that might result, were presented recently in References [20] and [21].

FIGURE 2OB IDENTIFIED BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN REVILLAGIGEDO ISLAND AND GRAVINA ISLAND

6.1 Consideration of a 200-foot High Bridge in the Vicinity of Ketchikan Airport and of a 200-foot High Bridge over East Channel

A bridge with 185 feet of vertical clearance—one of the considered alternatives in an earlier stage of this project—might be insufficient in the future (see Reference [21] and Tables 4 and 5). On the other hand, bridges with vertical clearance that equals or exceeds that of the Lions Gate Bridge (200 feet of vertical clearance; see Table 19) would have little or no impact on navigation. This is because, as noted in

6-1

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Section 2.2, nearly all of the large cruise ships calling at Ketchikan pass under the Lions Gate Bridge located at the First Narrows at Vancouver, BC. However, it is recognized that aviation requirements and construction costs might constrain the height of bridges crossing Tongass Narrows. Acceding to aviation requirements and other factors could lead to consideration of bridges that do impede some vessel traffic. Because cruise ships are the largest vessels to ply these waters routinely, they are the vessels most likely to be affected by any such impairment. If a 200-foot-high bridge is feasible, issues related to the horizontal clearance are likely to remain. It was shown in Section 4 that marine pilots are able to contend with horizontal clearances that are considerably less than the 550 feet clearance expected for the bridges in Alternatives C3(a) and C4. Nonetheless, concerns seemed to prevail among marine pilots based at Ketchikan about the adequacy of the horizontal clearance. These concerns were addressed further through a fast-time Monte Carlo cruise ship simulation study. The Monte-Carlo simulation study showed that the introduction of piers in the deep navigable waters of Tongass Narrows would introduce new, permanent grounding and allision (collision with a fixed object) risks and increase the imperative for the existing custom and practice of one-way traffic for large vessels operating in Tongass Narrows. Cruise ships currently use the East Channel exclusively, and the 200-foot clearance of the East Channel Bridge would continue to allow the passage of large cruise ships. The introduction of bridge piers in the deep navigable waters of East Channel would introduce an incremental increase in grounding and allision risks at those locations. In addition, when considered with the fact that navigation of the East Channel currently involves passage through a constriction of the channel created by California and Idaho Rocks (approximate navigational clearance [width] of 477 feet), the placement of bridge piers in East Channel would add a second point of constriction in the channel by narrowing the channel width from approximately 1,100 feet to 550 feet. This second point of constriction would limit maneuvering opportunities in East Channel, and the potential for groundings and allisions at other locations within the East Channel would increase. The navigation impacts of Alternatives C3(b), D, and F3—on cruise ship schedules and selected operating costs, in particular—are addressed in the following subsections.

6.2 Effect on Sailing Distances

Alternatives C3(a), C4, and F1 are not likely to block or inhibit large-vessel traffic, since the 200-foot vertical clearances would allow the passage of large cruise ships. The bridge alternatives, C3(b), D, and F3 are likely to either block or inhibit large-vessel traffic in Tongass Narrows. This subsection assesses the increases in sailing distances that would result from any blocking of large vessel traffic.

6.2.1 Blocking Large Vessels North of the Cruise Ship Docks

If Tongass Narrows were to be blocked to large vessels north of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks (as is expected with Alternatives C3 (b) and D), then large cruise ships arriving from the south and continuing north would have to proceed southwest through Nichols Passage and round the southern end of Gravina Island to get to Clarence Strait and continue their voyage northward (via the route shown in blue in Figure 21). And large cruise ships arriving from the north would have to round the southern end of Gravina Island into Nichols Passage and then head northeast through Nichols Passage to proceed up Tongass Narrows to Ketchikan. These alternative routes join the normal route (the normal route transits the northern portion of Tongass Narrows and is shown in red in Figure 21) at a waypoint located in the center of Clarence Strait west of Caamano Point. The distance along this normal route to this waypoint is 17.7 n.m. as shown in Figure 22, and the distance along the alternate route around the southern end of Gravina Island is 48.2 n.m. Thus the 6-2

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

typical increase in route distance that would result from blocking Tongass Narrows north of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks is approximately 30.5 n.m.

17.7 n.m

48.2 n.m

FIGURE 21 EFFECT OF BLOCKING TONGASS NARROWS NORTH OF KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP DOCKS REVISED ROUTE (BLUE) AND NORMAL ROUTE (RED)

6.2.2 Blocking Large Vessels South of the Cruise Ship Docks

If Tongass Narrows were to be blocked to large vessels south of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks (as is expected with Alternative F3), then large cruise ships arriving from the north and continuing south would have to retrace their path through the northern half of Tongass Narrows and round Guard Island onto a southbound course in Clarence Strait to continue their southbound voyage (route shown in blue in Figure 22). And large cruise ships arriving from the south would have to proceed up Clarence Strait and round the Guard Islands into Tongass Narrows from the north to proceed down Tongass Narrows to Ketchikan. These alternative routes join the normal route (the normal route transits the southern portion of Tongass Narrows and is shown in red in Figure 22) at a waypoint located at the entrance to Malacca Passage near Prince Rupert. The distance along this normal route to this waypoint is 87.4 n.m., as shown in Figure 22, and the distance along the alternate route around the southern end of Gravina Island is 106.8 n.m. Thus, the typical increase in route distance that would result from blocking Tongass Narrows north of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks is approximately 19.4 n.m.

6-3

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

87.4 n.m.

106.8 n.m.

FIGURE 22 EFFECT OF BLOCKING TONGASS NARROWS SOUTH OF KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP DOCKS REVISED ROUTE (BLUE) AND NORMAL ROUTE (RED)

6.2.3 Blocking East Channel to Large Vessels

If only one of the channels alongside Pennock Island is blocked to large vessels, then there would be negligible impact on the sailing distances for cruise ships calling at Ketchikan. Revision 1 of this report (February 2000) included a consideration of the blocking of West Channel to large vessels. With the current Alternative F3, however, it would be East Channel that would be blocked to large vessel traffic. If East Channel were blocked to large vessels but West Channel were open, there would be only a negligible increase in sailing distance for cruise ships, but cruise ship operations would be made more complicated and difficult. This is discussed in Section 6.3.2.

6.3 Consequences of Blocking Large-Vessel Traffic in Tongass Narrows

This section considers the consequences of blocking large-vessel traffic in Tongass Narrows. It is pertinent to consider first some of the navigation characteristics of large cruise ships. As shown in Table 3, the large cruise ships that have operated in southeast Alaska during the 2001 season range in length from 617 feet overall to 965 feet overall. In addition, Table 4 shows recent deliveries and 6-4

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

ships on order among Alaska cruise operators. The overall lengths for those vessels are in the range of 781 feet to 1,020 feet. The concept design guidelines in Reference [18] give the navigational area requirements for the chosen design ship—the Carnival Conquest class of cruise ships, whose principal dimensions are shown in Table 24. As described in Reference [22], modern cruise ships are typically fitted with twin propellers and twin rudders, although some older cruise ships in Alaska service have single-screw/single-rudder or twin-screw/single- rudder. In addition, many recent and planned future cruise ships are being built with bow thrusters and either high-performance rudders or azipods that enhance their maneuverability. It is anticipated that over a long time frame (perhaps twenty to thirty years), an ever-increasing number of large cruise ships will be fitted with azipods or high-performance rudder systems. The navigational area guidelines in Reference [18] are based on the operation of single-screw/single-rudder ships. There are no navigational area data available for the modern cruise ships showing the advantages of twin-screw/twin-rudder vessels with bow thrusters. The navigational area estimates obtained from Reference [18] are expected to apply to the lowest-common-denominator cruise ships navigating unaided by tugs, without executing special maneuvers (e.g., tight turns or crabbing, which necessitate a reduction in speed), and without the differential operation of their propellers/rudders and/or bow/stern thrusters. Section 5.3.6.5 of Reference [18] gives guidelines on berthing and swinging areas required. If a berthing maneuver involves swinging the ship through 180°, then the swinging area is sized (for a lower bound) as a circle having a diameter approximately twice the length of the ship. For the design ship (Carnival Conquest), the swinging area diameter is 1,788 feet. This is shown as the red circle in the chart of Ketchikan Harbor in Figure 23. If the ship is to navigate normally, then a turning radius of four times the length is recommended for 20- degree rudder in water deeper than 1.5 times the draft (see Figure 5.8 of Reference [18]). If the design ship is 894 feet long (Carnival Conquest), this corresponds to a minimum turning radius of 3,576 feet, provided the water depth is at least 40 feet. Larger rudder angles will enable the ship to turn more tightly. However, it is inadvisable to have bends that require larger rudder angles, because that would give insufficient “reserve” rudder angle to counter wind, waves, or current – and would therefore compromise safety. The width of swept track is maximum in deep water and is then about 1.8 times the beam for a 20-degree rudder angle. For the design ship, this width is 255 feet. The width of the navigable channel in the bend should be no less than that of the straight channel. Preliminary guidelines regarding channel width requirements are available from Tables 26 and 27. The 20-degree rudder turns are shown as red arcs on the chart in Figure 23.

6-5

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

Cruise Ship Anchorage Cruise Ship Tender Traffic

Berthing and Swinging Area

FIGURE 23 NAVIGATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE BLOCKING OF LARGE-VESSEL TRAFFIC IN TONGASS NARROWS

6.3.1 Consequences of Blocking Tongass Narrows Near Charcoal Point

This subsection considers the consequences of closing Tongass Narrows at any location north of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks, but presumably in the vicinity of Charcoal Point. Two different traffic patterns must be considered if Tongass Narrows were to be closed to large shipping north of the cruise ship docks: · Ships arrive in Ketchikan via either East Channel or West Channel, and depart via the opposite channel. · Large ships enter and depart Ketchikan via East Channel. As previously noted (in Section 6.2.1), regardless of which of the two traffic patterns is adopted, closing Tongass Narrows to large ships in the vicinity of Charcoal Point would add approximately 30.5 n.m. to the running distance for ships calling at the Ketchikan cruise ship docks.

Large Shipping Uses Both East and West Channels 1. Practically, the 20-degree rudder turn plotted in Figure 23 for vessels proceeding to or from the south of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks via West Channel (red dashed arc) is infeasible because of insufficient water depth over Pennock Reef. The alternative is to proceed to the north of Pennock Reef and, after slowing down, make the necessary turn, either with tug assistance or with differential operation of the propellers and/or bow/stern thrusters (green line). Besides being a difficult maneuvering exercise, this maneuver would add time to the operations and might also require assist tugs where such assistance is currently not required. Large cruise ships currently avoid this turn around Pennock Reef. In this connection, note that the United States Coast Pilot (Reference [23]) indicates that large ships from the

6-6

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

south frequently take West Channel and navigate around Pennock Reef, so as to make a port landing at the Ketchikan cruise ship docks. This is contradictory to the information that has been obtained from the pilots and shipping agents, including Reference [24]. Therefore the Coast Pilot information is apparently outdated and does not reflect current practice applicable to the large cruise ships calling at Ketchikan today. For these ships, the route via West Channel and around Pennock Reef is not normal. 2. The cruise ship anchorage and the cruise ship tender traffic area are shown in Figure 23 (blue circle and blue lines). At present, only cruise ships to or from the north of the cruise ship docks pass through the anchorage. If Tongass Narrows were closed to large ships in the vicinity of Charcoal Point and ships arrived via either East or West Channel and departed via the opposite channel, then the traffic volume through the anchorage would be similar to the present circumstances, but the maneuver executed in the anchorage, including the possibility of tug assistance, would be more extreme. 3. Clearing the wreck marked by the red buoy WR6 and providing a minimum water depth of 6 fathoms in this area will open up additional maneuvering room for marine traffic. However, this is not going to make the West Channel route feasible for large cruise ships, because the difficulties mentioned in Item 1 above would still remain. 4. Given the additional time necessary to perform the turn around Pennock Reef and the approximately 30.5- n.m. additional running distance resulting from closure of Tongass Narrows to the north, a time penalty for cruise ships calling at Ketchikan might be expected. This impact on running time is estimated in Section 6.4, with an additional 15 minutes or so to perform the turn around Pennock Reef.

Large Shipping Arrives and Departs Via East Channel Only The consequences of large shipping both arriving and departing via East Channel is to eliminate the turn around Pennock Reef and through the cruise ship anchorage in exchange for the necessity of executing an approximately 180° turn, either on arrival or upon departure, in the berthing and swinging area off the Ketchikan cruise ship dock. 1. If all large ship arrivals and departures used East Channel, it would be necessary for each ship to execute an approximately 180° turn, either on arrival or upon departure, in the berthing and swinging area off the Ketchikan cruise ship dock. The wind in the general area of this turning and swinging area is reported to be very unsteady because of deflections off Deer Mount and other adjacent ridges. While modern cruise ships outfitted with bow thrusters and azipods should have relatively little difficulty making this ~180° turn, older cruise ships lacking modern maneuvering features such as bow thrusters, azipods or high- performance rudders, might find it necessary to obtain assistance from harbor tugs where such assistance is currently not required. Additional time would be required to execute this ~180° turn. 2. The cruise ship tender traffic area is shown in Figure 23 (blue lines). Ships arriving and departing via East Channel would have to execute the ~180° turn, possibly with tug assistance, in the area that includes the cruise ship tender traffic from anchored cruise ships. 3. Clearing the wreck marked by the red buoy WR6 would do little to improve cruise ship maneuvering if both arrivals and departures were via East Channel. 4. Given the additional time necessary to perform the ~180° turn and the approximately 30.5-n.m. additional running distance resulting from closure of Tongass Narrows to the north, a time penalty for cruise ships calling at Ketchikan might be expected. This impact on running time is estimated in Section 6.4, with an additional 15 to 20 minutes or so to perform the 180° turn.

6-7

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

6.3.2 Consequences of Blocking of East Channel

This section considers the consequences of closing East Channel to large shipping at a location south of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks. (Note that, unlike West Channel, East Channel aligns with the Ketchikan cruise ship docks.) In many respects, the consequences are similar to those that apply in Section 6.3.1 (a) above. 1. Practically, the 20-degree rudder turn plotted in Figure 23 for vessels proceeding to or from the south of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks via the West Channel (red dashed arc) is infeasible because of insufficient water depth over Pennock Reef. The alternative is to proceed to the north of Pennock Reef and, after slowing down, make the necessary turn, either with tug assistance or with differential operation of the propellers and/or bow/stern thrusters (green line). Large cruise ships normally avoid this by taking the East Channel instead of the West Channel. In this connection, note that the United States Coast Pilot (Reference [23]) indicates that large ships from the south frequently take the West Channel and navigate around Pennock Reef, so as to make a port landing at the Ketchikan cruise ship docks. This is contradictory to the information that has been obtained from the pilots and shipping agents, including Reference [24]. The Coast Pilot information is apparently outdated and does not reflect current practice applicable to the large cruise ships calling at Ketchikan today. For these ships, the route via West Channel and around Pennock Reef is not normal. Besides being a difficult maneuvering exercise (as illustrated in Figure 24), the additional maneuvering required would add time to the operations and might also require assist tugs where such assistance is currently not required. The difficulty is heightened for the case of southbound cruise ships docked port side to at the pier. These ships must make a 180-degree turn to starboard followed by another 180-degree turn to port to get to the head of West Channel and line up with the channel orientation (see Figure 24).

6-8

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

FIGURE 24 ILLUSTRATION OF CRUISE SHIP MANEUVERS IN KETCHIKAN HARBOR IF EAST CHANNEL WERE BLOCKED TO LARGE SHIPPING

1. The wind vectors in West Channel are expected to be less “confused” than they are in the general area of the cruise ship anchorage, where deflection off Deer Mount and other ridges make the winds more troublesome. It is in the area where the winds are troublesome that cruise ships using West Channel need to accomplish some complex maneuvering turns. The judgment of one cruise shipmaster is that large cruise ships should attempt the passage of West Channel only under wind conditions less than Beaufort Force 4 (11-16 knots). However, one local marine pilot does not share this degree of concern. (Shipmasters and marine pilots share responsibility in pilotage waters; accordingly, both the master and the pilot must agree on the advisability of a proposed maneuver.) 2. The cruise ship anchorage and the cruise ship tender traffic areas are shown in Figure 23 (blue circle and blue lines). At present, only cruise ships to or from the north of the cruise ship docks pass through the anchorage. If East Channel were to be closed, the vessels proceeding to the south of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks would also need to pass through the anchorage en route to West Channel. This would increase traffic through the cruise ship anchorage. 3. If East Channel were closed, vessels leaving the cruise ship docks would need to swing through 180 degrees, either with tug assistance or by operating their bow/stern thrusters. The area required for berthing and swinging is indicated in Figure 23 (red circle). Some interference with cruise ship tender traffic might be expected. 4. Clearing the wreck marked by the red buoy WR6 and providing a minimum water depth of 6 fathoms in this area would open up additional maneuvering room for marine traffic. However, this would not make the West Channel route feasible for large cruise ships, because the difficulties mentioned in Item 1 above would still remain.

6-9

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

The maneuver around Pennock Reef, the passage of West Channel, and the increased traffic through the anchorage and across tender traffic lanes all have adverse safety implications. If East Channel were blocked to large vessels but open to medium-sized shipping such as Alaska ferries and barge traffic, then the natural separation of shipping that currently takes place would be adversely modified and crossing traffic patterns would develop within Ketchikan harbor. And if East Channel were blocked to both large and medium-sized shipping (as would be the case with Alternative F3), then congestion in West Channel would be exacerbated. The operational alternative would be for cruise ship traffic to arrive and depart only through the north branch of Tongass Narrows. As previously noted (in Section 6.2.2), this would result in an increase of approximately 19.4 n.m. in the running distances for cruise ships calling at Ketchikan (the increase in running time is estimated in Section 6.4) This would alleviate the risk associated with maneuvering around Pennock Reef and that associated with the passage of West Channel, but all other impacts (including the adverse safety impacts of increased traffic through the anchorage and across tender traffic lanes) would remain.

6.4 Running Time and Other Impacts on Cruise Ships

This section addresses running time and other impacts of 120-foot high and 60-foot high bridges on large cruise ships. A 200-foot-high bridge would enable the passage of large cruise ships and would, therefore, not impact running time. The basis of this analysis is the Ketchikan and Juneau 2001 cruise ship calendar. The analysis focuses on northbound cruise ships, for which Juneau is the next port immediately following Ketchikan, and southbound ships departing Juneau, for which Ketchikan is the immediate next port of call. The 2001 Ketchikan cruise calendar delineates 104 northbound port calls and 282 southbound port calls by large cruise ships, for a total of 386 port calls (27% northbound and 73% southbound, overall). Of these, 95 northbound calls at Ketchikan proceed next to Juneau, and 94 southbound calls arrive directly from Juneau. The sailing distance for large vessels operating between Ketchikan and Juneau (from cruise ship dock to cruise ship dock) is 300 n.m. via Tongass Narrows, Clarence Strait, Sumner Strait, around Cape Decision, thence up Chatham Strait to Frederick Sound, and thence Stephens Passage, and finally Gastineau Channel. Of this distance, approximately 4.5 n.m. are slow-sailing waters – approximately 3.5 n.m. in Tongass Narrows restricted to 7 knots, and the final nautical mile (approximately) leading to the Juneau cruise ship dock. Approximately 15 minutes must be allowed for casting off and getting under way. And, likewise, 15 minutes must be allowed for maneuvering to berth and making fast. Making these allowances, a mean transit speed can be computed for each vessel calling at Ketchikan that is either arriving from or departing to Juneau. These are summarized in the following Tables 29 and 30. Table 29 summarizes the 2001 results for the 95 northbound vessel-trips calling at Ketchikan for which Juneau is the immediate next port of call, and Table 30 summarizes the 2001 results for the 94 southbound vessel-trips arriving at Ketchikan from Juneau. The tables give the cruise lines, vessel names, number of vessel-trips by each vessel at a given speed, total hours between ports, calculated average speed, percent of maximum cruising speed, maximum cruising speed, and maximum sea speed. The maximum cruising speed (corresponding to full speed on the vessel pilot card) is estimated as 90% of the maximum sea speed. Where both maximum sea speed and full speed were available, this 90% relationship was determined to be a good estimator. The maximum sea speed closely corresponds to the maximum speed capability or trials speed of the vessels. In general, ships and vessel operating companies are unwilling to schedule operations around maximum sea speed for the following reasons (and for other reasons not listed here): · Propulsion system reliability and availability are much higher if operations above 90% are avoided.

6-10

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

· Operations above 90% increase fuel consumption and cost; as a rough rule-of-thumb, fuel costs increase by 37% when speed is increased from maximum cruising speed to maximum sea speed. · Operations above 90% may result in vibrations that are objectionable to passengers. · The power reserves available when operations are scheduled using cruising speed are necessary to offset adverse environmental conditions (wind, waves, and current). · The speed reserves available when operations are scheduled using cruising speed may be used to overcome small time delays encountered during actual operations.

6-11

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 29 TRANSIT SPEED FOR NORTHBOUND CRUISE SHIP TRAFFIC IN TONGASS NARROWS IN 2001 2001 Cruise Season Northbound Percent Max. Average Max. Cruising KTN to JUN Speed Cruising Speed Full Sea Cruise Line Ship No. Trips (hours) (knots) Speed (knots) (knots) Carnival Carnival Spirit 7 16 19.89 91.70% 21.69 24.1 Celebrity Infinity 1 15 21.32 98.73% 21.60 24.0 Celebrity Mercury 9 17 18.64 96.31% 19.35 21.5 Crystal Crystal Harmony 1 19 16.55 83.58% 19.80 22.0 HAL Ryndam 9 17 18.64 94.12% 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 10 17 18.64 94.12% 19.80 22.0 HAL Veendam 1 16 19.89 97.78% 20.34 22.6 HAL Veendam 8 17 18.64 91.62% 20.34 22.6 Princess Dawn Princess 9 16.5 19.24 95.45% 20.16 22.4 Princess Ocean Princess 9 16.5 19.24 95.45% 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 9 16.5 19.24 95.45% 20.16 22.4 Princess Sun Princess 7 16.5 19.24 95.45% 20.16 22.4 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 1 18 17.53 84.68% 20.70 23.0 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 1 16 19.89 96.08% 20.70 23.0 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 4 15 21.32 103.02% 20.70 23.0 RCI Rhapsody/Seas 9 16 19.89 93.72% 21.22 23.6 95 16.56 19.20 94.65% 20.29 22.54

TABLE 30 TRANSIT SPEED FOR SOUTHBOUND CRUISE SHIP TRAFFIC IN TONGASS NARROWS IN 2001 2001 Cruise Season Southbound Percent Max. Average Max. Cruising JNU to KTN Speed Cruising Speed Full Sea Cruise Line Ship No. Trips (hours) (knots) Speed (knots) (knots) Celebrity Infinity 1 15 21.32 98.73% 21.60 24.0 Celebrity Mercury 1 18 17.53 90.59% 19.35 21.5 Crystal Crystal Harmony 2 18 17.53 88.53% 19.80 22.0 HAL Ryndam 9 17 18.64 94.12% 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 1 18 17.53 88.53% 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 8 17 18.64 94.12% 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 1 16 19.89 97.78% 20.34 22.6 HAL Veendam 9 17 18.64 91.62% 20.34 22.6 NCL Norwegian Wind 1 20 15.67 82.91% 18.90 21.0 NCL Norwegian Wind 9 17 18.64 98.60% 18.90 21.0 Princess Dawn Princess 9 16 19.89 98.66% 20.16 22.4 Princess Ocean Princess 8 16 19.89 98.66% 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 1 16.5 19.24 95.45% 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 8 16 19.89 98.66% 20.16 22.4 Princess Sun Princess 9 16 19.89 98.66% 20.16 22.4 RCI Vision/Seas 17 16 19.89 98.22% 20.25 22.5 94 16.49 19.29 96.46% 19.99 22.21

6-12

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

It may be observed in Table 29 that northbound cruise ships operated, on average, at 94.65% of estimated maximum cruising speed. From Table 30 it may be observed that southbound cruise ships operated at 96.46% of estimated maximum cruising speed. These percentages would be even higher were it not for a few cases where cruise ships were obviously scheduled with longer transit times. For example, one of the ten southbound trips by the Norwegian Wind (arriving in Ketchikan on July 14) was scheduled for a 20-hour transit, whereas the remaining nine trips were scheduled for 17-hour transits. Presumably, the additional three hours were scheduled for some special sight-seeing event (a tour up Taku Inlet, perhaps), or else the extra time was necessitated by some conflict with the cruise ship docks, either in Juneau or in Ketchikan. In any event, it can be seen that the large cruise ships are currently operating between Ketchikan and Juneau at approximately 95% of estimated maximum cruising speed. Given that the average estimated maximum cruising speed is somewhere between 19.99 and 20.29 knots, the remaining 5% corresponds to approximately one knot (i.e., they are operating about one knot less than the estimated maximum cruising speed in 2001). On the run between Ketchikan and Juneau, this extra knot might be expected to decrease running time by about 46 minutes. An analysis was conducted to test the degree to which running at full estimated maximum cruising speed can offset the adverse impacts of 120-foot high and 60-foot high bridges around Ketchikan. This time-and- motion analysis employed full estimated maximum cruising speed in transit and subjected it to the bridge alternatives with 120-foot high and 60-foot high spans. The first assumed a 120-foot high bridge north of the Ketchikan cruise ship docks, in the vicinity of Charcoal Point. This adds 30.5 n.m. to the sailing distance between Ketchikan and Juneau. The results of this assumption are shown in Tables 31 and 32.

TABLE 31 IMPACT ON NORTHBOUND RUNNING TIME OF A 120-FOOT HIGH BRIDGE ACROSS TONGASS NARROWS NORTH OF KETCHIKAN BRIDGE DOCKS Tongass Narrows Blocked North of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks 2001 Cruise Season Northbound Max. Baseline Hours at Cruising KTN to JUN Max Cruise Time Lost Speed Full Sea Cruise Line Ship No. Trips (hours) (hours) (hours) (knots) (knots) Carnival Carnival Spirit 7 16 16.17 0.17 21.69 24.1 Celebrity Infinity 1 15 16.24 1.24 21.60 24.0 Celebrity Mercury 9 17 17.99 0.99 19.35 21.5 Crystal Crystal Harmony 1 19 19.00 0.00 18.26 22.0 HAL Ryndam 9 17 17.61 0.61 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 10 17 17.61 0.61 19.80 22.0 HAL Veendam 1 16 17.17 1.17 20.34 22.6 HAL Veendam 8 17 17.17 0.17 20.34 22.6 Princess Dawn Princess 9 16.5 17.31 0.81 20.16 22.4 Princess Ocean Princess 9 16.5 17.31 0.81 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 9 16.5 17.31 0.81 20.16 22.4 Princess Sun Princess 7 16.5 17.31 0.81 20.16 22.4 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 1 18 18.00 0.00 19.34 23.0 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 1 16 16.89 0.89 20.70 23.0 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 4 15 16.43 1.43 21.32 23.0 RCI Rhapsody/Seas 9 16 16.50 0.50 21.22 23.6 95 16.56 17.23 0.68 20.28 22.54

6-13

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 32 IMPACT ON SOUTHBOUND RUNNING TIME, OF A 120-FOOT HIGH BRIDGE ACROSS TONGASS NARROWS NORTH OF KETCHIKAN BRIDGE DOCKS Tongass Narrows Blocked North of Ketchikan Cruise Ship Docks 2001 Cruise Season Southbound

Baseline Hours at Cruising JNU to KTN Max Cruise Time Lost Speed Full Sea Cruise Line Ship No. Trips (hours) (hours) (hours) (knots) (knots) Celebrity Infinity 1 15 16.24 1.24 21.60 24.0 Celebrity Mercury 1 18 18.00 0.00 19.34 21.5 Crystal Crystal Harmony 2 18 18.00 0.00 19.34 22.0 HAL Ryndam 9 17 17.61 0.61 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 1 18 17.61 0.00 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 8 17 17.61 0.61 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 1 16 17.17 1.17 20.34 22.6 HAL Veendam 9 17 17.17 0.17 20.34 22.6 NCL Norwegian Wind 1 20 20.00 0.00 17.29 21.0 NCL Norwegian Wind 9 17 18.39 1.39 18.90 21.0 Princess Dawn Princess 9 16 17.31 1.31 20.16 22.4 Princess Ocean Princess 8 16 17.31 1.31 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 1 16.5 17.31 0.81 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 8 16 17.31 1.31 20.16 22.4 Princess Sun Princess 9 16 17.31 1.31 20.16 22.4 RCI Vision/Seas 17 16 17.24 1.24 20.25 22.5 94 16.49 17.48 0.99 19.96 22.21

The average time lost on northbound voyages is 0.68 hours (41 minutes), and the average time lost on southbound voyages is 0.99 hours, or essentially 60 minutes. In addition, the cruise ships will apply more power (on average, +6,130 British horsepower [BHP]) northbound and +3,535 BHP southbound) and burn more fuel (on average, +4,594 gallons northbound and +2,712 gallons southbound). The standard deviation of additional fuel burned northbound is 2,103 gallons, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of 9,906 gallons. The standard deviation of additional fuel burned southbound is 2,750 gallons, with a minimum of 928 gallons and a maximum of 9,351 gallons. Similar analyses apply to a 60-foot high bridge across Tongass Narrows south of the existing Ketchikan cruise ship docks. If East Channel were to be blocked to large cruise ships by a 60-foot high bridge and if the majority of large cruise ships were to shun West Channel (even though the vertical bridge clearance might admit their passage), then the large cruise ships would have to travel an additional 19.4 n.m. and they would have to execute a 180° turn that is currently not required, adding 15 to 20 minutes to their harbor maneuvers. This possibility is represented in Tables 33 and 34.

6-14

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 33 IMPACT ON NORTHBOUND RUNNING TIME, OF A 60-FOOT HIGH BRIDGE ACROSS EAST CHANNEL SOUTH OF KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP DOCKS: DEPARTURE VIA NORTH All Large Cruise Ships Arrive and Depart to North 2001 Cruise Season Northbound

Baseline Hours at Cruising KTN to JUN Max Cruise Time Lost Speed Full Sea Cruise Line Ship No. Trips (hours) (hours) (hours) (knots) (knots) Carnival Carnival Spirit 7 16 16.00 0.00 21.62 24.1 Celebrity Infinity 1 15 16.01 1.01 21.60 24.0 Celebrity Mercury 9 17 17.71 0.71 19.35 21.5 Crystal Crystal Harmony 1 19 19.00 0.00 17.93 22.0 HAL Ryndam 9 17 17.34 0.34 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 10 17 17.34 0.34 19.80 22.0 HAL Veendam 1 16 16.92 0.92 20.34 22.6 HAL Veendam 8 17 17.00 0.00 20.23 22.6 Princess Dawn Princess 9 16.5 17.05 0.55 20.16 22.4 Princess Ocean Princess 9 16.5 17.05 0.55 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 9 16.5 17.05 0.55 20.16 22.4 Princess Sun Princess 7 16.5 17.05 0.55 20.16 22.4 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 1 18 18.00 0.00 19.01 23.0 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 1 16 16.65 0.65 20.70 23.0 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 4 15 16.20 1.20 21.32 23.0 RCI Rhapsody/Seas 9 16 16.27 0.27 21.22 23.6 95 16.56 16.99 0.44 20.26 22.54

TABLE 34 IMPACT ON SOUTHBOUND RUNNING TIME, OF A 60-FOOT HIGH BRIDGE ACROSS EAST CHANNEL SOUTH OF KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP DOCKS: DEPARTURE VIA NORTH All Large Cruise Ships Arrive and Depart to North 2001 Cruise Season Southbound

Baseline Hours at Cruising JNU to KTNMax Cruise Time Lost Speed Full Sea Cruise Ship No. Trips (hours) (hours) (hours) (knots) (knots) CelebrityLine Infinity 1 15 16.01 1.01 21.60 24.0 Celebrity Mercury 1 18 18.00 0.00 19.01 21.5 Crystal Crystal Harmony 2 18 18.00 0.00 19.01 22.0 HAL Ryndam 9 17 17.34 0.34 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 1 18 18.00 0.00 19.01 22.0 HAL Statendam 8 17 17.34 0.34 19.80 22.0 HAL Statendam 1 16 16.92 0.92 20.34 22.6 HAL Veendam 9 17 17.00 0.00 20.23 22.6 NCL Norwegian Wind 1 20 20.00 0.00 16.96 21.0 NCL Norwegian Wind 9 17 18.10 1.10 18.90 21.0 Princess Dawn Princess 9 16 17.05 1.05 20.16 22.4 Princess Ocean Princess 8 16 17.05 1.05 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 1 16.5 17.05 0.55 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 8 16 17.05 1.05 20.16 22.4 Princess Sun Princess 9 16 17.05 1.05 20.16 22.4 RCI Vision/Seas 17 16 16.99 0.99 20.25 22.5 94 16.49 17.25 0.75 19.93 22.21 6-15

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

The average time lost on northbound voyages is 0.44 hours (26 minutes) and the average time lost on southbound voyages is 0.75 hours (45 minutes). In addition, the cruise ships will apply more power (on average, +6,035 BHP northbound and +3,395 BHP southbound) and burn more fuel (on average, +4,527 gallons northbound and +2,613 gallons southbound). The standard deviation of additional fuel burned northbound is 2,013 gallons, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of 8,817 gallons. The standard deviation of additional fuel burned southbound is 2,620 gallons, with a minimum of 928 gallons and a maximum of 8,044 gallons. Finally, assuming a 60-foot high bridge across East Channel south of the existing Ketchikan cruise ship docks and a willingness of large cruise ships to use West Channel adds approximately 1.8 n.m. to the running distance, and the cruise ships would have to execute the equivalent of two 180° turns that are currently not required, adding 30 to 40 minutes to their harbor maneuvers. This possibility is represented in Tables 35 and 36.

TABLE 35 IMPACT ON NORTHBOUND RUNNING TIME, OF A 60-FOOT HIGH BRIDGE ACROSS EAST CHANNEL SOUTH OF KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP DOCKS: DEPARTURE VIA WEST CHANNEL East Channel Blocked - Large Cruise Ships Use West Channel 2001 Cruise Season Northbound

Baseline Hours at Cruising KTN to JUN Max Cruise Time Lost Speed Full Sea Cruise Line Ship No. Trips (hours) (hours) (hours) (knots) (knots) Carnival Carnival Spirit 7 16 16.00 0.00 20.83 24.1 Celebrity Infinity 1 15 15.49 0.49 21.60 24.0 Celebrity Mercury 9 17 17.09 0.09 19.35 21.5 Crystal Crystal Harmony 1 19 19.00 0.00 17.21 22.0 HAL Ryndam 9 17 17.00 0.00 19.46 22.0 HAL Statendam 10 17 17.00 0.00 19.46 22.0 HAL Veendam 1 16 16.34 0.34 20.34 22.6 HAL Veendam 8 17 17.00 0.00 19.46 22.6 Princess Dawn Princess 9 16.5 16.50 0.00 20.12 22.4 Princess Ocean Princess 9 16.5 16.50 0.00 20.12 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 9 16.5 16.50 0.00 20.12 22.4 Princess Sun Princess 7 16.5 16.50 0.00 20.12 22.4 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 1 18 18.00 0.00 18.27 23.0 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 1 16 16.09 0.09 20.70 23.0 RAD 7 Seas Mariner 4 15 15.67 0.67 21.32 23.0 RCI Rhapsody/Seas 9 16 16.00 0.00 20.83 23.6 95 16.56 16.60 0.05 20.01 22.54

6-16

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

TABLE 36 IMPACT ON SOUTHBOUND RUNNING TIME, OF A 60-FOOT HIGH BRIDGE ACROSS EAST CHANNEL SOUTH OF KETCHIKAN CRUISE SHIP DOCKS: DEPARTURE VIA WEST CHANNEL East Channel Blocked - Large Cruise Ships Use West Channel 2001 Cruise Season Southbound

Baseline Hours at Cruising JNU to KTN Max Cruise Time Lost Speed Full Sea Cruise Line Ship No. Trips (hours) (hours) (hours) (knots) (knots) Celebrity Infinity 1 15 15.49 0.49 21.60 24.0 Celebrity Mercury 1 18 18.00 0.00 18.27 21.5 Crystal Crystal Harmony 2 18 18.00 0.00 18.27 22.0 HAL Ryndam 9 17 17.00 0.00 19.46 22.0 HAL Statendam 1 18 18.00 0.00 18.27 22.0 HAL Statendam 8 17 17.00 0.00 19.46 22.0 HAL Statendam 1 16 16.34 0.34 20.34 22.6 HAL Veendam 9 17 17.00 0.00 19.46 22.6 NCL Norwegian Wind 1 20 20.00 0.00 16.27 21.0 NCL Norwegian Wind 9 17 17.46 0.46 18.90 21.0 Princess Dawn Princess 9 16 16.47 0.47 20.16 22.4 Princess Ocean Princess 8 16 16.47 0.47 20.16 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 1 16.5 16.50 0.00 20.12 22.4 Princess Sea Princess 8 16 16.47 0.47 20.16 22.4 Princess Sun Princess 9 16 16.47 0.47 20.16 22.4 RCI Vision/Seas 17 16 16.41 0.41 20.25 22.5 94 16.49 16.79 0.30 19.76 22.21

The average time lost on northbound voyages is a negligible 0.05 hours (3 minutes), and the average time lost on southbound voyages is 0.30 hours (18 minutes). In addition, the cruise ships will apply more power (on average, +4,690 BHP northbound and +2,642 BHP southbound) and burn more fuel (on average, +3,579 gallons northbound and +2,055 gallons southbound). The standard deviation of additional fuel burned northbound is 1,197 gallons, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of 5,813 gallons. The standard deviation of additional fuel burned southbound is 1,816 gallons, with a minimum of 928 gallons and a maximum of 4,519 gallons. Regarding additional fuel consumption and assuming marine diesel fuel (some cruise ships may be burning “heavy fuel” (HFO) such as IF380), unit marine diesel fuel cost is currently probably about $1.00 per gallon. Obviously, a similar question can be posed for vessels sailing south of Ketchikan. The critical issue is probably not scheduled arrival in Vancouver, BC, but arrival at (or departure from, northbound) Seymour Narrows. Cruise ship transits between Seymour Narrows and Ketchikan were not analyzed for two reasons: the appropriate schedule information pertaining to Seymour Narrows was not readily available, and the distance between Seymour Narrows and Ketchikan (approx. 446 n.m.) is greater than the distance between Ketchikan and Juneau (approx. 300 n.m.). Thus the Ketchikan–Juneau leg is more critical for making up time.

6-17

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

6.5 Other Effects of a 60-foot High Bridge over East Channel and a 200- foot High Bridge over West Channel

As described in the previous sections, Alternative F3 includes a low (60-foot vertical clearance) bridge over East Channel and a higher bridge (200-foot clearance) over West Channel south of the Ketchikan cruise ship dock. Currently, cruise ships predominantly use East Channel because it provides a nearly direct alignment to docking and berthing facilities, while West Channel requires considerable maneuvering in order to berth. This alternative would have an adverse impact on cruise ships because it would require the exclusive use of West Channel by cruise ships, which in turn would require additional maneuvering, increased sailing time (and decreased port time).

The use of West Channel also presents safety concerns for cruise ship lines and ship pilots. Discussions of these safety concerns are detailed in "Ketchikan Bridge Project, Port of Ketchikan, Alaska, Tongass Narrows, Summary Report," prepared by RTM STAR Center in Dania, Florida (see Appendix I). The RTM STAR Center study included full-mission computer generated simulation of large cruise ships maneuvering into and out of Ketchikan. The concerns presented in the report include comments from Ketchikan cruise ship pilots that West Channel with the Alternative F3 Bridge is too narrow to safely navigate large ships. The primary issue is that there is no margin for error at the bridge; e.g., a gust of wind, an engineering casualty, an error in responding to helm commands, or opposing traffic, would allow very little time (or space) to react and take sufficient evasive action. Other issues include risks associated with: a tidal current set toward Pennock Island; bank suction effects at the bridge site; maintaining vessel control in following winds and currents by increasing speed above the existing speed limit; and the need to execute a 120-degree turn around Pennock Reef, especially when the harbor has other maneuvering vessels and vessels at anchor.

Also, AMHS ferries usually use West Channel, and the high span over West Channel would allow continued use by the AMHS ferries. The AMHS ferries would not be able to transit East Channel. With cruise ships required to use the West Channel as well, marine traffic in the West Channel would increase. The current separation of AMHS traffic from cruise ship traffic by Pennock Island would cease. Furthermore, container-carrying barges would likely not be able to traverse East Channel, contributing further to marine traffic in the West Channel.

In addition, the introduction of piers in the deep navigable waters of Tongass Narrows would introduce new, permanent, grounding and allision risks. The above discussion suggests a consideration of modifications to West Channel, such as making it wider, so as to mitigate the anticipated traffic congestion and the risk of grounding.

6-18

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

7—Conclusions

In support of the Gravina Access Project and together with a similar effort to identify aviation requirements, this updated reconnaissance of vessel navigation requirements serves to support the process of identifying practical alternatives for improving access between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. This report, in addition to identifying the number and characteristics of vessels using Tongass Narrows, assesses some of the effects of the proposed project alternatives on marine navigation. The report includes projections for future cruise ship traffic in Tongass Narrows and an analysis of the navigation impacts of the proposed bridge alternatives—Alternatives C3(a), C4, C3(b), D1, F1, and F3— especially on cruise ship schedule and selected operating costs. Some of the proposed bridge alternatives—C3(b), D1, and F3—have clear potential to block or inhibit large- vessel traffic in Tongass Narrows. Either closing Tongass Narrows in the vicinity of Charcoal Point or closing East Channel to large cruise ships would require cruise ships routinely accomplishing difficult maneuvers, which might consist of turns around Pennock Reef and transiting West Channel and/or making an approximately 180° turn in the berthing and swinging area. Ships that lack modern maneuvering features such as bow thrusters, azipods or high-performance rudders might find it necessary to engage harbor assist tugs where such assistance is currently not required. Closure of East Channel or closure of Tongass Narrows in the vicinity of Charcoal Point, with large ships making use of both East and West Channels, would increase traffic through anchorage and across tender traffic from anchored cruise ships. Any of the potential closures would increase running distances and corresponding travel time for cruise ships calling at Ketchikan. Any of the potential channel closures to large ships could also adversely impact operations of these vessels as a result of (i) increases in maneuvering time; (ii) increases in sailing distances (for ships unwilling to use West Channel); (iii) increases in direct expenses associated with requirements for more assist tug services and/or increased fuel costs associated with efforts to increase speed to maintain schedule; and (iv) decreases in safety due to the need for more complex maneuvers in congested areas. These factors would likely result in increased costs of operations for large vessels calling at Ketchikan. The bridge alternatives that appear to pose the least impact on vessel navigation in Tongass Narrows are Alternatives C3(a), C4, and F1. As the project progresses, a preferred alternative will be identified for evaluation in the EIS. A final design will follow approval of the EIS.

7-1

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

8—References

1. Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, U..S Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 4 – Waterways and Harbors on the Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii, 1999, New Orleans; also downloadable from http://www.wrsc.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc.htm. 2. G.P. Wild (International) Limited, “Cruise Industry Statistical Review 1999.” 3. Klugherz & Associates, “Cruise Industry Background (DRAFT),” facsimile transmission to Mark Dalton of HDR Alaska, September 3, 1999. 4. Ketchikan Cruise Ship Calendars for the years 1991 through 2001, Ketchikan Visitors Bureau. 5. Alaska Marine Highway System, “1997 Annual Traffic Volume Report,” downloadable from http://ntl.bts.gov/data/97tvr. 6. Alaska Marine Highway System, “1998 Annual Traffic Volume Report,” downloadable from http://ntl.bts.gov/data/98tvr. 7. Alaska Marine Highway System, “Summer 2001 Schedule,” downloaded from http://www.dot.state.ak.us/external/amhs/schedres/index.html. 8. KJS Associates, Inc., et al., “Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan,” prepared for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, March 1999; 2nd printing (incorporating errata), May 1999. Downloadable from http://www.dot.state.ak.us/external/state_wide/planning/seplan.html. 9. Southeast Region, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, “Addendum One to the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan,” February 2001; available on line at http://www.newwavesalaska.com/addfinal22701.pdf. 10. “New Waves,” Southeast Alaska Transportation News, on the Internet at http://www.newwavesalaska.com. 11. Jack Meyers, Special Project Manager, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, private communication. 12. Tucker Gilliam, Marine Superintendent at Crowley Petroleum, Long Beach, California, private communication. 13. Norman Polmer, The Ships and Aircraft of US Fleet, 12th edition, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1983. 14. Alaska Harbor Management System, “Operations Management Report,” Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Ports and Harbors, 1994. 15. United States Coast Guard, Tongass Narrows Voluntary Waterway User Guide, Juneau, Alaska, March 1999. 16. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sailing Directions – British Columbia Coast (South Portion), Ottawa, Canada, Paragraph 126, Vol. 1, 15th ed., 1990. 17. The Glosten Associates, Inc., “Cruise Ship Traffic Projections,” Technical Memorandum for Gravina Access Project, prepared for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, September 2001.

8-1

Reconnaissance of Vessel Navigation Requirements Report

18. “Approach Channels – A Guide for Design,” PTC II-30 Final Report of the Joint Working Group PIANC and IAPH in cooperation with IMPA and IALA, Supplement to Bulletin No 95, June 1997. 19. Bruce L. Hutchison, “Evaluation of the Incidence of Two-Way Traffic in Tongass Narrows,” Project Memorandum to HDR, Alaska, 6 July 2001. 20. Mary Klugherz, “Interim Assessment of Cruise Industry Interviews,” memorandum to Mark Dalton, HDR Alaska, 31 May 2001. 21. Mary Klugherz, “Update of Cruise Industry Interviews,” memorandum to Patrick Burden, Northern Economics, 28 July 2001. 22. The Glosten Associates, Inc., “Gravina Access Project: Consequences of Various Channel Closures to Large Shipping – Technical Memorandum,” prepared for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, February 2001. 23. United States Coast Pilot 8, Pacific Coast Alaska: Dixon Entrance to Cape Spencer, 23rd edition, 1999. 24. John Miskell (CGD13 Bridge Program Manager), “Trip Report, Tongass Narrows, Ketchikan, Alaska,” prepared after transiting Tongass Narrows aboard three different cruise ships on 15 May 2000. 25. Bruce L. Hutchison, “Running Time and Other Impacts on Cruise Ships,” facsimile transmission to Mark Dalton of HDR, Alaska, 27 August 2001.

8-2